Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the first Question I wish to tell the House that I intend to follow the customary practice of calling first those hon. Members whose Questions are being answered, but because on two occasions today five Questions from one side of the House will be answered, I shall then, out of a sense of fair play, call hon. Members from the other side of the House as well.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

Rent Acts (Review)

Mr. Michael Morris: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment why he has announced another review of housing, this time on private rented accommodation.

Mr. Durant: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he is satisfied with the working of the Rent Acts.

Mr. Onslow: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is taking to draw the Consultation Paper "Review of the Rent Acts" to the attention of home owners in the Armed Services.

Mr. John Hunt: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what specific steps he is taking to obtain the views of students, nurses, teachers and other single and newly-married young people currently suffering from the effects of the shortage of rented accommodation in central London and other cities, on the contents of his consultation paper "Review of the Rent Acts."

Mr. Luce: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from landlords of privately rented property in the current year in connection with the operation of the Rent Act 1974.

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Reginald Freeson): The intention to review the Rent Acts was announced by my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for the Environment, the present Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, on 20th November 1975, following an undertaking that I gave to do so in July 1974 when we were debating the Rent Act 1974. We have always made it clear, as we have in the consultation paper, that the Rent Act review would be related to, but separate from, the main housing policy review. In the review I am ready to examine suggestions for changes in the Rent Acts and associated legislation, subject to the major proviso that the general principle of security of tenure for the tenant in his home is to be maintained. The consultation paper has been circulated to individuals and organisations within and outside Government and I shall gladly send copies on request to those who wish to contribute and who have not already received the paper.

Mr. Morris: Does the Minister now accept that in London thousands of empty houses and flats are being kept off the market by his Rent Act? Can the House have an undertaking that the legislation mentioned in the consultation document will be presented to the House in good time for it to become law within this Session?

Mr. Freeson: The hon. Gentleman referred to the Rent Act, but there are several Rent Acts, to which both parties have been committed at one stage or another. As to thousands of properties being empty, the only figures that we have, upon which to base a broad assessment, are those provided by the 1971 Census, which preceded the 1974 Act. In London it was estimated that about 90,000 dwellings—that is, less than 4 per cent. of the total housing stock—were empty on the night of the Census, and that is probably roughly the figure to date.

Mr. Durant: Does the Minister realise the effect that the 1974 Act has had on accommodation for single persons in growing towns, such as Reading, where such accommodation is essential to the university? Is he aware that 18 students who started at the university last year were sleeping on camp beds because they could not find suitable accommodation?

Mr. Freeson: For many years past there have been students in such situations in universities all over the country at the start of term. As to the effect of the Rent Act 1974 on housing for single people in Reading, I should be glad to receive more than generalisations and to have information sent to me by the hon. Gentleman. I should welcome that.

Mr. Hunt: Does the Minister realise that the young people to whom I refer in my Question have strong views on the Rent Acts because those Acts have virtually dried up the supply of rented accommodation upon which they previously depended? Although the Government are now showing stirrings of concern, does the Minister recall how, monthly, he stood at the Dispatch Box and airily dismissed warnings from the Opposition Benches as party propaganda? Does he not feel shame and guilt at his past inaction and complacency?

Mr. Freeson: Taking one Act at a time, the 1968 Act—which dealt with unfurnished accommodation, and which was a revision and consolidation of the 1965 Act—was not only maintained under the previous Administration; at the appropriate election times, public declarations were made by the Conservative Party that it did not intend to revoke that Act. So all sides must be responsible for the Rent Acts.
On the substance of the point, I still do not accept that the problem of the shortage of rented accommodation has arisen since 1974. It is nonsense to suggest that it has. It has been a problem of varying patterns, and for many years past there has been an annual loss of about 100,000 rented dwellings from the market. The biggest rise in that figure occurred after the passage of the 1957 Rent Act, which decontrolled properties.

Mr. George Rodgers: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the decline in the number of properties to let in the private sector has nothing to do with the security of tenure provided by the 1974 Act? Is it not true that the removal of similar protection in the 1957 Act did nothing to increase the number of properties available for letting at that time, and has not the decline continued for the greater part of this century?

Mr. Freeson: I agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said. I urge hon. Members to remember that in examining these matters we require a good deal more than generalisations and slogans. We need to analyse what is happening in the housing market. There is no doubt, for example, that a major contributory factor has been the welcome growth in owner-occupation. In some years, 40 per cent. of the movement into owner-occupation has come from people who were previously in rented properties. This is not a consistent figure, but it is a factor that must be taken seriously into account.

Mr. Rossi: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that although there is no direct statistical evidence, there has been a worsening of the situation since July 1974, and that there is evidence of a withdrawal of letting accommodation, or a shift by landlords to holiday lettings, bed and breakfast, or lettings simply to foreigners and not British people, because of the effect of the 1974 Act? Will he therefore consider some of the propositions put forward by the Opposition to encourage landlords to let empty property, including fixed-term lettings or short holdings, because the need is to provide homes for people and to encourage rather than discourage letting?

Mr. Freeson: No doubt the hon. Gentleman will prepare a full statement on behalf of his party or himself and other interested people in regard to proposals for changes in the Rent Act. They will be seriously considered. On the first part of his question, I repeat that generalisations are not good enough. I always recognised, even before we introduced the 1974 Act, that there would be some disincentive to some landlords when conditions were imposed on lettings. This is a natural part of life. However, I said then, and I maintain, that the 1974 Act


together with the Acts of 1965 and 1968 have saved far more dwellings from going out of the rented market than they have lost to that sector. The Acts have stopped a lot of compulsory movement out of rented accommodation which would then have been lost to the rented market.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Will my hon. Friend give more attention to the needs of tenants and less attention to the pressure from the landlords' lobby opposite? In particular, will he note some of the exorbitant rents now being fixed by rent assessment committees, which are raising rents almost automatically every three years? Will he continue rent control for those who live in houses without amenities and continue, as he says in his document, to provide security of tenure for tenants?

Mr. Freeson: On my hon. Friend's last point, I have given that assurance at the Dispatch Box and in the consultative document. We stand by the principle of security of tenure. As for proposals for changing or maintaining the status quo of the detailed operation of the Rent Acts, we shall be considering this as part of the consultative process and the review. There is a need to simplify the Rent Acts and to do a number of other things. We have to take account of the point that my hon. Friend has raised about the criteria on which rents are being fixed by rent officers. My hon. Friend has quoted some extreme examples, and there is no doubt that they exist. On the other hand, there are some properties that are not being properly maintained, and we have to look at means of getting an adequate flow of resources to ensure that these properties are maintained and modernised.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) has just come into the Chamber. As his Question is being answered with Question No. 1, I shall call him to put a supplementary question. Mr. Onslow.

Mr. Onslow: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for not being here when the Minister made his original reply, but I have only just received notice that my Question was being taken with Question No. 1. Is the Minister aware that the Rent Act is having a very damaging

effect for Service men? Is he aware that those who own their own homes are being put in a position of not daring to rent them, while those who wish to buy their own homes and finance them by renting are actively discouraged from that prudent course?

Mr. Freeson: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's proposition. If people are in ignorance of the workings of the Rent Act, things can go wrong, but let me make it clear again that a home owner—a Service man or anyone else—who lets his home has an absolute right to repossession when he or a member of his family needs to occupy it, provided he has warned the tenant in the due form set out in the Act before the letting began. This matter was examined closely in Committee and the position was made clear then. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman advises anyone who comes to him with such a problem to act accordingly. I shall be glad to supply him with the appropriate information.

Mr. Onslow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Nuclear Power (Flowers Report)

Mr. Forman: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish a White Paper in response to the Flowers Report on Nuclear Power and the Environment.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Peter Shore): The Report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution raises issues of major national importance affecting a number of Government Departments. The Government will publish their response as quickly as possible.

Mr. Forman: Will such a White Paper cover some of the environmental issues likely to be raised at the public inquiry into BNFL's plan for a mixed oxide reprocessing plant at Windscale? Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that no decision will be taken on the commercial fast-breeder reactor unless or until the Government have acted upon some of the recommendations in the


Flowers Report, particularly on the important questions relating to nuclear waste?

Mr. Share: I hesitate to say more about Windscale, because I made a statement on 22nd December and the Royal Commission Report went very much wider than the question of the particular oxide processing plant. On the wider environmental issues that the Flowers Report identified, we shall be giving a careful response and addressing ourselves to the whole complicated question of waste management and disposal.

Mr. Thompson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the anger felt in areas that have been selected for research into the disposal of nuclear waste into geological formations? Is he aware that many people believe that once test borings are made we shall be on the slippery slope to becoming a nuclear dump, and that we shall be left with no protection from bureaucratic decisions? Will these matters be covered in the White Paper'?

Mr. Shore: I am certain that no specific decisions will be made in a White Paper which will be a general response to matters raised by the Flowers Committee. I deplore the language that the hon. Gentleman used, but I can assure him that clearly there must be a programme of research into suitable places within the United Kingdom where, on the best possible information, it is safe to dispose of nuclear waste. It is the duty of the Government and responsible agencies to examine the whole country to discover the most suitable areas. No decision has been made, and there is no question of the Government's simply announcing a decision if and when we reach the time when we wish to do so.

Mr. William Hamilton: Why does my right hon. Friend think that the Japanese want to export their nuclear waste thousands of miles away?

Mr. Shore: I think that the Japanese have two reasons. They have made no secret of them. The first is that they are prone to repeated volcanic influences, and it is difficult for their Government to envisage anywhere in their territory that would provide safe geological formations in which they could store waste.
Secondly, for reasons that we all understand, in Japan there is an extra sensitivity to all nuclear questions.

Mr. Penhaligon: Will the Secretary of State explain the logic of one Government Department asking the House for another £1,000 million to extend the nuclear power industry before his Department has given us guidance on his reaction to the Flowers Report?

Mr. Shore: The matters covered by the nuclear legislative proposals that we put before the House a week or so ago of course go much further than the question of building a particular oxidisation plant. They include many other things, such as the provision of new and improved facilities for dealing with Magnox fuels at Windscale. It is appropriate for the Ministry to go ahead as it plans to do. That will not pre-empt or prejudge the results of the inquiry that I am about to set up.

Urban Problems

Mr. Peter Bottomley: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce the findings of the ministerial committee concerned with urban problems.

Mr. Silvester: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce the findings of the ministerial committee concerned with urban problems.

Mr. Steen: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce the findings of the ministerial committee concerned with urban problems.

Mr. Eyre: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce the findings of the ministerial committee concerned with urban problems.

Mr. Lawrence: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce the findings of the ministerial committee concerned with urban problems.

Mr. Shore: I refer the hon. Members to the reply that I gave to the hon. Members for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Eyre) and Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen) on 19th January 1977.

Mr. Bottomley: When the Secretary of State does announce the Committee's findings, will he beware of creating intense disillusionment and disappointment by offering no new initiatives or resources to these areas?

Mr. Shore: I shall be careful not to arouse false expectations. Whenever I have addressed myself to this problem in public, I have always emphasised the great restraint on total public expenditure in which we are bound to be operating for the next year or two at least. But I have also made it plain that it is not impossible, if we are prepared to redistribute resources, to find within existing totals of public expenditure some useful resources to help certain areas. But those areas will be highly selective and will be those that are in real need.

Mr. Steen: Does the Secretary of State agree that it was grossly unfair of the Prime Minister to blame Labour councils at a recent local government conference for the decline in the inner city areas when most of those areas have been represented by Labour members from time immemorial?

Mr. Shore: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has not blamed Labour councils for this. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertee (Mr. Steen) has made a rather foolish remark. For example, I am not aware that the cities of Liverpool and Birmingham have remained under Labour control and direction for many years. The parties have shared control over those areas. It would be foolish of us to blame each other in a party political way for the real problems that exist in the inner cities—problems that exist in other countries as well as in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Eyre: When speaking at conferences will the Secretary of State recall that under this Government the house improvement campaign, which is of vital importance to inner areas, has been cut to one-third of its 1974 level? Will he also state—since he acknowledges that small businesses have an enormous contribution to make to employment—when the Government will stop hammering small businesses, and how their problems are to be eased?

Mr. Shore: I would like to believe that a substantial proportion of home

improvement grants found their way into the inner cities when they were available on a lavish scale in years gone by, but I do not think that that was true.
We are concentrating municipalisation expenditure and Section 105 expenditure precisely within those areas of greatest need, including the designation of housing stress areas. The problem of small businesses is one that can be helped a great deal not only by planning policy changes by local authorities but by a possible improvement of the provisions of all kinds that local authorities are able to make for small businesses.

Mr. Lawrence: Is the Secretary of State not particularly appalled by the escalation in juvenile crime in areas of urban decline? Does he consider that the action of his right hon. Friend, who has just left the Chamber, in demoralising the police force at the present time is one of the best ways of solving the problem of juvenile crime?

Mr. Shore: That is not a helpful or serious question. The problem of juvenile crime is a serious and growing one. The whole House understands that. But this is not the proper place or occasion to debate that aspect of the matter.

Mr. Stan Crowther: In the current debate about the allocation of resources to new towns and city centres, will the Secretary of State bear in mind that the majority of people do not live in either? Will he accept from me that in the northern half of England, where many people live in industrial towns of medium size, there is a strong feeling that we have already failed to receive our fair share of national resources because of the competition from new towns? Will he ensure that his current preoccupation with city centres does not further deprive us?

Mr. Shore: I accept that the majority of people do not live in inner city areas or new towns, but the majority of people not living in those areas get the largest proportion of resources, in the form of rate support grant, allocation for housing, and so on. New towns must have the resources that are necessary for their existence and growth, and in the inner cities there is a large problem that must be solved.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I welcome the change of direction by the Government to the inner areas, but does the Minister agree that greater assistance should be given to self-help groups, such as housing associations? Will he give them every encouragement?

Mr. Shore: I shall do my best to give them all possible encouragement, but we must go beyond that and try to enter into some kind of closer partnership with the principal local authorities concerned to do the things that are needed.

Mr. Skinner: Money is what is needed—and lots of it.

Mr. Shore: I had better not say any more.

Mr. Newens: I welcome the steps that my right hon. Friend is taking in the inner city areas. Will he make it clear that this is not an alternative to new town development? Will he make it perfectly clear that it would be totally wrong for hon. Members to regard new town development, inner city redevelopment or the development of the smaller city areas as being mutually exclusive policies? Those who are concerned about housing should support them all.

Mr. Shore: I agree that they are not mutually exclusive policies. Anyone looking at the first 20 to 25 years of the post-war period will acknowledge the enormous part that new towns have played in relieving the intolerable pressures in the inner cities of our major conurbations. But in the somewhat changed circumstances we must now look at all policies that are relevant to the dispersal of population from our cities. Within that context I am reappraising the rôle of the new towns.

Mr. Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that the real problem with which he is faced at the Dispatch Box today and every day will continue until he refuses to accept the views of the Opposition to cut public expenditure? Until he halts the cuts in expenditure and assists in building more houses and helps those who are providing the goods and services for the public utilities and for manufacturing, he will never solve the problem of the inner cities, the outer cities, the rural areas, the small and large towns and all the rest. That is the problem.

Mr. Shore: I do not agree with my hon. Friend. There is a remarkable thing—I do not agree with him on this occasion! Even in times when national economic stringency has not been pulling so tightly its cords around us as it is now—during periods of relative national affluenc—the problems of the inner cities have been growing and have not been dealt with. One of the things that we must do, regardless of the total resources available, is to use what we have more sensibly, in a more purposive and helpful way, to tackle what are revealed to be the very serious problems of our society.

Mr. Heseltine: Does the Secretary of State agree that in talking about deploying more public resources to the inner city centres he is perhaps missing the point? Does he understand that cities grew because there was a powerful economic reason for their doing so, and that the more that the State has encroached, the more that the planner has been regulated, and the more that controls have proliferated, so the attractiveness, economically and socially, of the inner city areas has declined? Until he recognises that because there are new severe constraints on public sector funds it is the private sector that will have to be given the incentives to return to the inner city areas, he will never realise the massive change in public attitudes necessary to restore the strength of our inner cities.

Mr. Shore: That is altogether too partial a view of what has happened in our inner cities. I believe that local authorities in inner city areas—I accept this point—have given, perhaps perfectly naturally, for the greater part of the postwar period absolute priority to housing needs, and have tended not to consider, to the extent that we would wish, the needs of employment and particularly of small firms in their areas. However, the hon. Gentleman must also realise that the inner cities have until very recently not had that extra increase in resources for dealing with their problems which I believe they have now been given, certainly since we started changes in the needs assessment of rate support grant which began in 1974. Secondly, local authorities have been tremendously impeded throughout most of the post-war period


by the appalling vagaries of land values and the high prices of land in their areas.

Council House Building

Mr. Terry Walker: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will review his policy on future council house building.

Mr. Freeson: We aim to make the provision of housing more responsive to detailed local needs. That includes maintaining a high priority for council house building programmes and concentrating activity where housing needs are greatest.

Mr. Walker: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. May I draw to his attention the fact that unless building land is available now for councils to acquire, there will be a shortage of houses to rent in the future, when this land will not be available?

Mr. Freeson: I certainly accept that there must be more advanced programming of land assembly for this purpose. My understanding of the position, which was examined very carefully most recently in the latter part of last year, but not for the first time, is that this was not a problem that was facing local authorities. If there are particular problems in my hon. Friend's locality of which he is aware, I shall be glad to receive details.

Mr. Rossi: Will the Minister ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to use his influence to ensure that the report of the Building Economic Development Council, which the Secretary of State has in his possession, is published in full and without delay, as it apparently contains important evidence on the question of the subsidy cost of new council house building? Does he not accept that any suggestion of suppression or censorship of this report will be bitterly resented not only by this House but by those who are concerned with the truth underlying the real problems relating to housing in this country?

Mr. Freeson: No doubt my right hon. Friend has heard the rather odd way in which that question has been put to him.

Empty Houses

Mr. Ronald Atkins: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what

is his estimate of the number of unoccupied houses in England and Wales.

Mr. Freeson: The most recent comprehensive estimate of the number of empty dwellings is provided by the 1971 census, which recorded 675,880 dwellings in England and Wales—about 3·9 per cent. of the total housing stock-as "vacant on census night ".
Information about vacant council dwellings in England and Wales is obtained annually from the Department's relets inquiries. The results for 1975 show that on 31st December about one-half of 1 per cent. of local authority housing revenue account dwellings—that is, approximately 25,000—were vacant and available for letting. About a further three-quarters of 1 per cent.—approximately 38,000—were vacant for modernisation, repair or conversion.

Mr. Atkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is a large number, which causes considerable hardship in view of the long waiting lists, and is a waste of national wealth from the point of view not only of the deterioration of property and all that surrounds it but also of unused national assets, a waste that we can ill afford as a nation?

Mr. Freeson: If properties of any kind in whatever ownership are left empty for any length of time, what my hon., Friend has said is correct. However, he will appreciate that the kind of figure that I have quoted or, indeed, the kind of figure that could emerge from a census taken at any point in time is, as it were, a photographic figure of the position at that time. It does not necessarily follow that the 675,880 dwellings empty on census night in 1971 were empty for the long time that would give rise to the problems to which my hon. Friend has referred. Many would be changing hands on the market. This is a very small percentage in national terms. However, I take the central point that my hon. Friend is making, irrespective of the particular figure. I am concerned about that, and we are seeking to do everything we can to encourage local authorities to undertake more than simply purchases of properties lying empty on the market and more speedy means of reletting and modernisation or repair of properties, and to undertake leasing arrangements.


[interruption.] This is not a question of relets. It is a question of the handling of properties that stand empty in local authority ownership and in the ownership of private owners. We are seeking to press and encourage them to undertake leasing arrangements, which they are doing in increasing numbers.

Mr. Heseltine: Will the Minister understand that he is widely regarded as the most complacent Minister for Housing since the war? The fact that he can say to the House that the present situation, in which nearly 700,000 homes that would have been available for letting are now unoccupied, is something that he can take with equanimity is intolerable. His Government's policy is worsening the position in regard to houses available for letting, and his position at the Dispatch Box—" looking al this" and "talking about that"—is worsening the problem, about which he should be proposing action and not merely words.

Mr. Freeson: A little more homework would not go amiss, I think, nor would a little less rhetoric in the form of questions. As a matter of fact, I have made no statement such as the hon. Gentleman has attributed to me. Let me make the point, for what it is worth, that the census figures that I have quoted were made available in 1971, and I do not recall that a Labour Government were in office then or during the two years that followed.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I must be fair to others with Questions on the Order Paper. Mr. MacGregor.

Community Land Scheme

Mr. MacGregor: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment by how much the allocation for land acquisitions under the Community Land Scheme in 1977–78 and the two subsequent years has been reduced from the levels previously proposed in Command Paper No. 6393.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Guy Barnett): Reductions of £35 million in each of the years 1977–78 and 1978–79 were announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on

15th December. A provisional figure for 1979–80 will be contained in part II of the White paper on expenditure published later this month.

Mr. MacGregor: Do not these cuts, which are the result of very limited resources and which are likely to continue for years to come, mean that the Community Land Act simply will not have achieved the objectives that the Government set for it? if the Minister will not abandon the scheme altogether, as he should, will he at least consider raising and widening the limits for excepted development and urge the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reduce the rate of development land tax so that private developers can undertake the rôle that the public sector cannot undertake?

Mr. Barnett: My belief is that these cuts have not had any serious effect on the beginning of the scheme, which is building up steadily but building up well. The local authorities are, at the present stage, building up their staffs and beginning to operate the scheme. I do not think that the fact that the cuts have taken place at this stage is at all damaging to the scheme. It will provide a very good basis for the expansion of the scheme when market conditions are right.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Is my hon. Friend aware that while we welcome the scheme we want to see more use made of it, above all in the North-East in the special development areas where we have been denied the use of it for industrial schemes in a rather worrying way?

Mr. Barnett: I should like to have details from my hon. Friend of schemes where sanction has been denied. Local authorities are encouraged to submit proposals where they find them helpful in their own areas. One of the reasons why the scheme is not building up as fast as one might have expected is the present state of the land market.

Mr. Speed: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that neither house builders nor local authorities share his sanguine view about the scheme?

Mr. Barnett: My sanguine view of the scheme is based on what we believe is likely to arise as soon as economic activity begins to get going.

Holiday Caravans (Rating)

Mr. Whitehead: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will order a review of the procedures for rating holiday caravans under a single hereditament per site in the Caravan Sites (Rating) Act.

Mr. Guy Barnett: No, Sir. As far as I am aware, the procedures laid down in the Act are proving satisfactory in operation and are working better than the previous arrangements under which holiday caravans were rateable individually.

Mr. Whitehead: Will my hon. Friend take it from me that that is not true and that a great deal of chaos is being caused as a result of the revaluation? Will he accept that the legislation we passed last year is being used as a front by many owners for unfortunate and regrettable behaviour in respect of the renewal of leases and collection charges? Will my hon. Friend agree to meet a deputation of Members from both sides of the House to discuss the matter, which is becoming a scandal?

Mr. Barnett: I shall be glad to discuss with my hon. Friend the issues that he has raised in his supplementary question. I shall be glad to go into them with him. However, in general our evidence is that the Act is working reasonably well.

Mr. Jim Lester: Will the hon. Gentleman take it from me that the Act is not operating very well? I make the same offer to the hon. Gentleman as I made to his predecessor, namely, the chance to come to the East Coast with Members from both sides of the House to see for himself what is happening in the area. Is he aware that people are being charged a fee for the collection of rates, and that some are being asked to pay rates for 1977–78 before the local authorities have even fixed them?

Mr. Barnett: I have heard reports of fees that I believe to be totally unjustified. I have already written to the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection on this issue.

Mr. John Ellis: Will my hon. Friend accept from me, along with other hon. Members who have asked supplementary questions, that all is not well in this

sector and that for a variety of reasons the caravan owner still lacks many of the basic freedoms that others enjoy? He is imposed upon under this heading and many others. It is time that we did something to give caravan owners the normal rights that are enjoyed by others.

Mr. Barnett: I suspect that my hon. Friend is going a little wider than the Questions I think that he is raising issues such as security of tenure, which he may know is being studied as part of the mobile homes review. I take on board some of the points that he makes.

Stansted Airport

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a statement on the progress of his consideration of the proposed expansion of Stansted Airport.

Mr. Guy Barnett: The consultations on airport strategy for Great Britain, including the possibility of increased use of Stansted, will be completed shortly. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade will make a statement after there has been full consideration of the views expressed.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Essex Members are grateful to his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade for giving them an opportunity of discussing this matter with him? Is he further aware that those throughout Essex and on both sides of the Chamber who won a battle in defence of the beauties and amenities of Stansted are resolved not to lose the war?

Mr. Barnett: I am looking forward to meeting the Stansted Airport Action Group this week to discuss matters as it sees them from its angle. I cannot prejudge the statement that my right hon. Friend will ultimately make, but at present we are considering the views that have been expressed on both sides of the argument.

Mr. Newens: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that opposition to the expansion of Stansted is based not solely on noise considerations but on wider planning considerations? Is he aware that there would be considerable problems about housing the workers if there were a large-scale


expansion, especially if Harlow were to fall foul of any decision relating to new town development in future? Although we are not opposed to a limited expansion, will my hon. Friend remember that there will be strong across-the-board opposition to a massive expansion on a site that we have discussed at great length in the past?

Mr. Barnett: The views that my hon. Friend has expressed have been put to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and myself in the consultations that we are undertaking. If my hon. Friend wishes to expand on those views by correspondence, we shall be glad to receive any information or views that he cares to give us.

Mr. McCrindle: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that his right hon. Friend's approval of Skytrain earlier this week means that there will be an automatic increase in the use of Stansted in the immediate future? Is he aware that there are many who would be prepared to consider a moderate increase in the use of Stansted but would be totally opposed to converting Stansted into a third London airport, either directly or, as some may fear, by stealth?

Mr. Barnett: That view has been expressed to us. It is a view that we shall bear in mind in our considerations.

Mr. Heseltine: Does the hon. Gentleman understand that the prevarication that lies behind his answers this afternoon will cause the gravest concern among all the communities that thought that the issue had been finally resolved, as they will now find that it is apparent that the Government are reopening the issue?

Mr. Barnett: I am absolutely astonished by the hon. Gentleman's question. The Government are the first Government to have undertaken a national review of airport policy in full consultation with all interests involved. I do not think that we can be blamed in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests. The consultation is bound to involve delay. As a consequence, we shall come forward with a national airports policy of a sort that the hon. Gentleman would never have produced.

Housing (Private Lettings)

Mr. George Rodgers: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his policy towards securing a greater availability of houses to let in the non-local authority sector.

Mr. Freeson: Government policy is to encourage a greater variety of social ownership and tenure. In the past three years the provision of dwellings by registered housing associations has trebled, to a rate of 30,000–40,000 extra a year. Shared equity schemes are now being sponsored by a number of local authorities and housing associations and there is an increasing number of co-operative housing schemes being initiated. A number of other initiatives are being considered in the context of our housing policy review and the review of the Rent Acts.

Mr. Rodgers: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, which has anticipated my supplementary question. Does he see a greater rôle for the utilisation of direct works departments by municipal authorities?

Mr. Freeson: That matter is rather separate from the question of tenure. I ask my hon. Friend to await the publication of our proposed Bill on direct labour organisations in the not-too-distant future, when he will have ample opportunity of studying the details of what we have in mind.

Mr. Budgen: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the main reason for the non-availability of rented private houses is the continued operation of the Rent Acts since 1915? Will he also confirm that the lengthy review that he has instituted is no more than an elaborate attempt to prepare the ground so that he can persuade his party that the ridiculous prejudices that it has held so dearly over the years are wrong and are the principal cause of homelessness?

Mr. Freeson: I think that I can safely leave the question of persuasion in the hon. Gentleman's hands, although I do not think that that will be very effective.

Mr. Joseph Dean: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the main component of housing is housing finance? I


ask my right hon. Friend to make available to Members the findings of the various bodies that were asked to submit evidence to him in the general housing finance review.

Mr. Freeson: I am somewhat at a loss, because it is my recollection that in every instance the bodies concerned published the evidence that they submitted to us, but I shall check on the matter. We shall ensure that the submissions that were made to us are made available to Members.

Property Services Agency

Mr. Cope: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will now publish an annual report and accounts for the Property Services Agency.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Kenneth Marks): I do not consider that the preparation of an annual report for the Property Services Agency would be justified. Each year the accounts of the Agency are laid before this House and published, together with the Comptroller and Auditor General's report. The Agency is subject to all the normal methods of parliamentary control.

Mr. Cope: Why should this Agency, which does essentially a commercial management job for the Government, publish less information than a private sector property company, because it uses taxpayers' money?

Mr. Marks: It has a wider scope and is involved with defence and many other matters as an agency for other Government Departments. Unlike nationalised industries, the Agency has to reply to questions in this House through a Minister. Next week, the chief executive will appear before the Public Accounts Committee, and the Public Expenditure Committee is also involved with it.

Mr. Madden: Does my hon. Friend agree that this is an enormous property empire? Certain of its overseas activities have been the subject of criticism by a Select Committee. Will my hon. Friend reconsider the way in which this body is accountable, because many of us believe that it is not adequately accountable and that this House is not enabled to look publicly in sufficient detail and depth at its activities in the way that we think suitable?

Mr. Marks: As I have said, it is open to hon. Members to question this body and, as my hon. Friend said, members of the Select Committee have examined—which, I admit, is more than I have done—the overseas activities of the Agency. There is ample opportunity for the House to register an opinion and to question what happens in the Agency.

Mr. Heseltine: What proportion of the PSA's activities and assets are involved in defence work?

Mr. Marks: That is not a question that I can answer off the cuff, but if the hon. Member puts down a Question I shall answer it.

Mr. Corbett: Will my hon. Friend take a particular look at the situation where the PSA buys up houses in the expectation of roads being built, and then vandalises them? Will he stop that from happening? Will he make it clear to the PSA that it should not vandalise houses, so that when decisions are taken which mean that the roads are not to be built the houses can quickly be made available for the homeless?

Mr. Marks: We are acting as the agency for other Departments and must take advice when houses are needed. Frequently, when there is a possibility of roads being built, to assist those whose houses may be blighted there is purchase in advance. Wherever possible the Department concerned or the PSA lets the houses prior to the need for them to be demolished.

Mr. Sainsbury: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that in a Written Answer in reply to my Question he said that the cost of preparing a report would be £25,000? In view of the wide interest, both in the House and outside, in the activities of the PSA, and as its net expenditure is £776 million, does he agree that £25,000 would be money well spent?

Mr. Marks: Perhaps the best reply is that the former Ministry of Works, which preceded the PSA before it was created by a Conservative Government, produced an annual report but stopped doing so on the grounds of economy.

Building Societies Association

Mr. McCrindle: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when


he next plans to meet the Building Societies Association.

Mr. Shore: I had an informal meeting with some of the leaders of the Building Societies Association on 26th January. I am ready to meet them again whenever the need arises.

Mr. McCrindle: I welcome the recent improvement in the inflow of funds to the building societies, but does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, if the first six weeks of 1977 are anything to go by, there will still be serious difficulties in obtaining a mortgage in 1977? Will he say what effect he thinks that is likely to have on housing policy in general and on the building industry in particular?

Mr. Shore: I endorse the hon. Gentleman's words about welcoming the inflow of funds. He asks me, on the basis of the first six weeks of this year, to take a view about the inflow of funds a little later on. It is a little early to do so, but my hope and belief are that we shall see a return, as it were, to the far more normal inflow of funds that we experienced in 1976 and earlier. If that is so, as I hope it will be, I have no doubt that it will give considerable encouragement to the private house building sector.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: When my right hon. Friend sees the Building Societies Association will he tell it to stop the practice of red-lining certain districts, which is distasteful to many people in the inner cities, particularly the immigrants living there?

Mr. Shore: I agree with my hon. Friend about the undesirability of the practice of red-lining. We have made plain to the building societies our concern about this. In particular cases they have followed through our representations to them, and I believe that effective action has been taken. I am fully aware that there are still, and will continue to be, reports of such practices. I hope that they will be sent to me so that I can take them up with the building societies.

Mr. Stephen Ross: Will the right hon. Gentleman impress on the Building Societies Association that, as soon as funds permit, one of its first priorities must be to get interest rates down, which are usurious at 12¼ and 12½ per cent. in the case of the Halifax Building Society?

Mr. Shore: It would be most welcome if we could get mortgage lending rates down. That would give great satisfaction to everyone, but I believe that the prior need is to restore the inflow of funds to societies.

Planning Appeals

Mr. Clemitson: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied that planning appeals are being dealt with by his Department as expeditiously as possible.

Mr. Guy Barnett: I am satisfied that there has been a substantial improvement over the last three years.

Mr. Clemitson: Does my hon. Friend agree that a considerable number of people are playing the system by knowingly not complying with the planning law and using the appeals system as a means of buying time so that they can continue their unlawful and often lucrative activities?

Mr. Barnett: There is certainly one sphere in which the kind of complaint that my hon. Friend has made is particularly true. This is with regard to enforcement over land use. I was pleased that a Private Member's Bill introduced into the House on the subject a short time ago received a Second Reading.

Mr. Sims: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the increasing tendency of his Department to deal with planning appeals by written representation rather than a public inquiry deprives individuals and local organisations of the opportunity of ensuring that their views are adequately considered? Will the hon. Gentleman reconsider that policy?

Mr. Barnett: The advantage of the written method is that it is quicker, and the original Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, East (Mr. Clemitson) is about trying to speed up the planning process—a suggestion which I strongly support, for many reasons. I think I am correct in saying that the decision whether to go for the written method or a public inquiry depends on the views of the people who are parties to the planning application, though others who have views—such as amenity societies—may be adversely affected, and I take the point.

Mr. Molloy: Is my hon. Friend prepared to consider providing financial assistance to local organisations and citizens who band together and feel strongly about planning applications? They are at a grave disadvantage when they have to meet local authorities or my hon. Friend's Department which are represented by legal people. Ordinary people cannot afford that sort of thing. Is my hon. Friend prepared to consider whether, on certain occasions, financial help should be given for ordinary citizens to be properly and legally represented at public inquiries?

Mr. Barnett: That point has been put a number of times. It is my evidence that inspectors go out of their way to ensure that groups of the kind referred to by my hon. Friend are adequately considered. I do not think that we could consider giving financial help during the present economic situation.

Mr. Arthur Jones: The Minister will be aware of the general opinion that the delay in the Department from the date of an appeal hearing to the announcement of the Minister's decision is far too prolonged. Can he give any explanation for that and say to what extent he is taking into account the unreasonableness of the delay, which is generally acknowledged?

Mr. Barnett: If the hon. Gentleman has any special cases to bring to my attention, I shall be glad to consider them. I am doing everything I can to speed things up, but from time to time exceedingly difficult planning appeals come to the Department and inevitably take longer. It is in those cases that the difficulty so often arises.

Green Belt Land (Designation)

Mr. John H. Osborn: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with metropolitan city councils and metropolitan district councils about his and their respective responsibilities for designating the green belt round major cities; and whether he will set up an inquiry concerning the proposal to build on the High Storrs Rough in the Hallam constituency, some of which is used for allotment gardening and was assumed to be green belt.

Mr. Guy Barnett: My right hon. Friend has had no such discussions with metropolitan county councils or district councils. On the information at present available to him, he is not convinced that he should set up an inquiry into the proposal to build on this land.

Mr. Osborn: Although strategic planning is the responsibility of the county council, is the Minister aware that the designation of the green belt around Sheffield has always been vague? What steps will he take to prevent further erosion of the green belt and countryside around Sheffield?

Mr Barnett: My information is that the land to which the hon. Gentleman refers is within the area of the draft green belt proposal drawn up by the old Sheffield City Council in 1937 and never submitted to the Department. In such circumstances, our general view would be that such planning decisions are more properly taken locally, where, indeed, most planning decisions of that kind are taken.

MR. AGEE AND MR. HOSENBALL

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement.
The House will recall the statement that I made on 18th November last in which I said that I proposed, under the powers vested in the Home Secretary by the Immigration Act 1971, to make deporation orders against Mr. Philip Agee and Mr. Mark Hosenball, whose departure from the United Kingdom I had concluded was conducive to the public good as being is the interests of national security.
I explained to the House the non-statutory procedure under which Mr. Agee and Mr. Hosenball could make representations to an independent panel whose advice I would take into account before coming to a final decision.
Both Mr. Agee and Mr. Hosenball elected to make representations to the panel. I have now received and considered its advice in both cases. I have also considered the various representations that have been made to me by Mr. Agee and Mr. Hosenball themselves, their advisers, right hon. and hon. Members, and members of the public. I have reached the clear conclusion that in both cases my original decision must stand. I have therefore made a deportation order against each man.

Hon. Members: Shame.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: It is like Czechoslovakia.

Mr. Rees: These orders will now be served on them together with notices of restriction requiring them to report weekly to the police. Before directions for removal are given stating the destination, which would normally be their own country, the United States of America, I am prepared to consider, in respect of either of them, specifying another country of their choice, provided they can show by the beginning of next month that the country would be prepared to accept them. This is without prejudice to their statutory right of appeal against the destination finally named.

Hon. Members: Shame.

Mr. Whitelaw: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Conservative Opposition's position will remain as I stated it on 18th November—namely, that this House is rightly jealous of individual liberty but at the same time the security of the State must be the primary consideration? On the evidence available to him and not available to others in this House or to any of the rest of us—[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] In terms of national security there are inevitably matters which are in confidence to Ministers and to no one else, and that must be the position.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must restrain themselves.

Mr. Whitelaw: In these circumstances, is the Home Secretary aware that we shall certainly not question his decision?

Mr. Rees: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, but I must make one point clear. What is at issue is whether the powers available to me under the separate code of the Immigration Act should be used against foreigners temporarily in this country, and when I hear cries of "Czechoslovakia" it is not an equation that I am prepared to accept.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: It is the same.

Mr. Rees: It is not the same. We are dealing with an important issue and nothing will be gained by my being shouted down. I am not prepared to be shouted down on the ground that some people are better Liberals or better Socialists according to the loudness of their voices.— [Interruption.] Those who are shouting at me have not had the access to the papers to which I have had access to.

Hon. Members: Why not?

Mr. Speaker: Order. It would be a thorough disgrace to this House—[HON.MEMBERS: "It is."]—order—if free speech were denied. Even if it is a view that hon. Members do not like, we must listen to it.

Mr. Rees: Under the law that I have to apply, I have information which I have to put before an independent panel, to which I have not spoken. The decision is mine at the end of the day, and


all I can say is that no Home Secretary could lightly disregard the advice that comes from the panel, and I am not prepared to say any more than that.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: The Home Secretary says that he has irrefutable evidence that these people have committed some of the most bestial crimes against the State. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] He has said that he has irrefutable evidence that they have betrayed the lives of Britishers. He said so in his original statement. Let those who were not present look up that statement.

Mr. Skinner: That is right.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: If that is the evidence, should not the Home Secretary have these people tried in camera? There would be no need for the trial to be public, and if the two men were found guilty they should be sentenced severely. But if my right hon. Friend is going to deport them to the country of their choice, will they not be able to disseminate there all the information which it is alleged that they have? Is it not the case that the CIA has demanded this action, and that my right hon. Friend has given way to that demand?

Mr. Rees: My hon. Friend has not referred correctly to what I said in my original statement. I must make it abundantly clear that there has never been any representation from the United States Government or from any American agency. I am not interested in that. I am concerned with the interests of this country. Those who have been talking about the CIA and what happens in the United States are entitled to do so—and some of those who have spoken in that way are most curious people to have done so, but that is another matter. I am interested only in this country, and I have carried out the law as passed in 1971.

Mr. Hooson: Is the Home Secretary aware that we on the Liberal Bench find this whole procedure offensive and contrary to the traditions of fair play and justice in this country? Is he further aware that we in the House do not know whether an injustice has been done to either or both of these men because we have no means of knowing? Is he also

aware that although we may rely on his judgment, the whole procedure lends itself to the suspicion that that judgment may be very suspect?

Mr. Rees: I am prepared to accept that discussion of the procedures—which were discussed both in 1971 and on the earlier legislation in 1969—is important, but I am also sure that no one has yet been able to devise an alternative procedure which would both protect the sources of evidence and give the person concerned—[interruption.] I must tell my hon. Friends that I am not equating this matter with the Official Secrets Act. I am saying that I have put my mind to the procedures and I know of no other way in which the sources of information could be protected. Cases differ. I am quite sure that in this process there is the greatest difficulty, but hon. Members, who are quite properly worried about the situation, should not equate it with the CIA, because that is not my interest.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Despite the roar of approval that he received from the Tory Benches, will my right hon. Friend recognise that there is serious concern about this case because no one in the House, apart from himself, knows the evidence or knows whether these men have been treated justly and fairly? There is great concern that, in order to reassure the House, my right hon. Friend could have explained a good deal more about what they are alleged to have done. Before these men are deported, will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that there will be a debate in the House so that the whole matter can be fully discussed, including the issue of the procedures?

Mr. Rees: The question of a debate is not a matter for me. But in this particular case I made the situation clear in the first instance. I have said to the House all that I can say, and on that I have to rest.
I have discussed this matter with my hon. Friend, and he has every right to be concerned about the procedure. My hon. Friend worked at the Home Office and concerned himself with these matters. No one has yet been able to devise a procedure which protects sources of evidence. It is extremely important that that should be done.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: As I understand it, the Home Secretary is merely telling these people either to go home to the United States or to go to a country of their choice. Has he any evidence that they will face political persecution at home, or have they applied for political asylum?

Mr. Rees: I have no evidence on the latter point. But at the end of the fortnight period if they have not gone to a country of their choice, and by virtue of the law, I would have to sign an order saying "Back to the United States". They have the right of appeal on this issue under the 1971 legislation.

Mr. Mellish: As one who has enormous regard and respect for my right hon. Friend's judgment and integrity, and in fairness to himself, may I ask whether it is not possible for him to convey to the country—not only this House—some idea of what these people are charged with so that we can see why my right hon. Friend arrived at his decision? I happen to be one of those who believe that my right hon. Friend would not have made a decision of such great importance unless the evidence was overwhelming and it was for the benefit of and met the needs of the country.

Mr. Rees: I did not repeat it again today, but in November, and on other occasions, I read the list which I think would meet the case about which my right hon. Friend is concerned. Mr. Agee, for example,
had maintained regular contacts harmful to the security of the United Kingdom with foreign intelligence officers; had been and continued to be involved in disseminating information harmful to the security of the United Kingdom; and has aided and counselled others in obtaining information for publication which could be harmful to the security of the United Kingdom."—[Official Report, 18th November 1976; Vol. 919; c. 1567–8.]
That is what I am talking about.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: Before the right hon. Gentleman listens too closely to analogies drawn between this country and Czechoslovakia, will he point out to his hon. Friends that this country is probably unique as being the one country in which citizens can leave or enter at will with or without a passport?

Mr. Rees: Whatever analogies are made, I am talking about visitors to this

country who are free to come and go as they will. I have a responsibility, in the way that I have explained, for within this country.

Mr. Whitehead: Will my right hon. Friend accept that the sense of grief with which we have heard him today comes partly because the deportation to a country of their choice was precisely what was offered last week to the Charter 77 leaders in Czechoslovakia, and we do see something of a parallel in these matters? Will he further accept that all of us who have become concerned about these matters are most concerned that when the two accused men faced the tribunal—which alone knew what the truth of the charges against them might be—it was seeking by interrogation to make clearer that the charges put to them were not such that they could have any possible notion of the full gravity of the offences with which they were supposedly charged.
In the case of one of the men, who has not yet been mentioned—Mr. Hosenball—the main interrogation hinged upon the so-called Cheltenham article which, it subsequently emerged, he did not write. It was written by a British subject. It would be best for this House, for Parliament and for the judicial procedures of this country if we were to set up a Select Committee to look at these procedures which are profoundly unsatisfactory, because I do not believe that they can be used again.

Mr. Rees: With regard to a Select Committee, or some appropriate way of looking at the working of this legislation, certainly if it is a matter of looking at the working of legislation—the procedures—I can understand the proposal. I realise the concern that people feel about this. But we are not talking about deporting people from Britain. We are not talking about Charter 77. We are talking about people who are visitors to this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Foreigners."] The analogy is certainly not complete.
With regard to procedures, there is still the aspect that there is information which cannot be brought out in public without risking the lives of people who work for the State.

Mr. Amery: None of us who have had ministerial responsibility in intelligence


or security services can possibly ask the right hon. Gentleman, with any sense of responsibility, to disclose the evidence on which he has taken his decision. Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that many of us on this side of the House think that when he was responsible for Ulster he showed, if anything, undue leniency. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that the facts are strong enough to warrant deportation, that is good enough for me.

Mr. Rees: There have been curious analogies today. What I did in Ulster was to make sure that people who were involved in violence, and who were from Northern Ireland, were dealt with by the courts. I believe that I was right to do that. It is not a question of leniency. I believe that it was sense. I do not believe that there is analogy with this in terms of leniency. I have the law to carry out. It is a law that Parliament passed. That is all that I have available to me. On the basis of that, I believe that I have done the right thing. I have not done it on advice within the Department on a wide basis. There have not been Press releases which said this has been dealt with only because of my responsibility for the security services. Indeed, I am aware of my wider responsibilities in that sense because of what has gone on in other countries.

Mrs. Hart: Speaking also as a Minister who has had some concern with intelligence responsibility on at least two occasions, I have found that sometimes the information is not entirely correct. Is my right hon. Friend aware of the very great concern about the procedures under the 1971 Act? This is a hypothetical question, but sometimes Ministers can answer slightly hypothetical questions. If new procedures are found which are satisfactory to my right hon. Friend in terms of the urgency and the need to protect the sources of intelligence information, would he be prepared to look again at these two cases? Is he fully aware that throughout the whole of the local proceedings Mr. Agee and Mr. Hosenball were not allowed to know anything more about the charges against them, which the right hon. Gentleman had made public to the House, and there was no transcription or recording of the defence evidence?

Mr. Rees: Regarding the procedures, I have indicated on all occasions that, as happened in 1971, Parliament should look at them to see whether they are conducive to the public good and security. That is the right thing to do. But I certainly cannot have this case looked at again. Anything that happens in future might be looked at under new laws passed by Parliament. I did not take this decision lightly in the first instance. There are easier matters for politicians to deal with than this case. I believe that I was right in the decision that I took. If it brings out the kind of feeling which people have in that respect, I suppose it can be said that I knew in the first instance that it would do so, but I still feel I was right to take this course.

Sir A. Meyer: Is the Home Secretary aware that, despite a massively orchestrated Communist campaign to portray these two individuals as equivalent to the Shrewsbury pickets, the great mass of public opinion still remains of the conviction that he has leant over backwards to be fair?

Mr. Rees: There have been some curious analogies this afternoon. I should point out that not only Communists have been concerned. Civil liberties in this country are proper and important matters for this House to consider. People who are by no means Communists are concerned about this case, and I understand why. But, under the law, I had to take the decision. The matter went to the panel, which knew what it was looking for, but the decision was mine. All I can say in that respect is that I obviously took into account what the panel said.

Mr. Strauss: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, as a former Minister who had analogous but not identical security responsibilities for some time, I fully sympathise with him in the difficult decision that he had to make under the procedure.
Is he aware that, during a period when we had grave difficulty because people such as Fuchs and Pontecorvo were giving information to potential enemies of this country, there was a correct demand for a careful survey of a large number of people who might be a danger to the security of the country—namely, civil servants and others in industry in sensitive positions? The Government, with the


general support of the House, then decided that the only course was to select those against whom there might be a case, although they had not committed any crime, and to submit their names to a group of senior civil servants, called the three wise men, who were asked to investigate the background and history of those people in the same way as the people who investigated this case. At the end of the day those three wise men made a thorough investigation and reported their conclusions to me as the Minister responsible at that time, and in most, but not all, cases I had to agree with those people.
Although the procedure is regrettable, unfortunate and difficult, does my right hon. Friend accept—I hope that the House will also accept—that we could not devise a better procedure? There was a tremendous outcry by all liberal opinion in the country about the procedure, but at the end of the day no better procedure was suggested. I think that the outcome was satisfactory, because only those against whom there was real suspicion were sacked from their posts.

Mr. Rees: The "three wise men" procedure is precisely the procedure that I followed in this case.

Mr. Cormack: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that most people in this country will expect him to put the security of the State first? Is he also aware that most people believe that he has behaved as a true British Home Secretary should behave and that, furthermore, they have absolute confidence in his judgment and integrity in these matters?

Mr. Rees: I am always grateful for support. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not misunderstand me. My father was a collier and my family did not need to be told that they were true British. We have taken it for granted.

Mr. Rose: I should like to express my utter dismay and revulsion at the Home Secretary's decision, particularly in respect of Mr. Hosenball. Is he aware that, having attended the procedures which resulted in the order for his deportation, I can only describe them as a mockery of justice? How on earth can one answer allegations when one does not know what they are and when one can-

not cross-examine those who are making the allegations? Is my right hon. Friend further aware that he is guilty of double standards with regard to agents of totalitarian powers who have been brought to his attention and about whom he and his Department have done nothing for two years?

Mr. Rees: We must disagree on the procedure.
On the latter point, my hon. Friend is concerned about certain Koreans who have been involved in activities in the United States and in this country. With regard to the evidence of their being involved in security matters which would be to the detriment of this country, if I have information it will be dealt with in the same way.

Mr. Mayhew: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this House owes a duty to those who serve this country in the security services? In many cases it would be easy for a Home Secretary to neglect that duty by taking a course which would disclose their identity. Is he aware that, where he is backed by the advisory panel which thinks it is right to make use of the procedure, this country will always support him?

Mr. Rees: I must make it clear that the decision is mine. The panel is advisory. All I have said is that I obviously take firmly into account what the panel says. One matter which I take into account in terms of information is the danger to servants of this country, which is what any Home Secretary will have to do.

Mr. Litterick: In view of the recent and, it seems to me, colossal failure of the security services to detect a considerable arms traffic between this country and South Africa via the Channel Islands, which is illegal and illicit, can my right hon. Friend with any confidence assure the House that his intelligence information system has not been subverted by some other organisation for its purposes?

Mr. Rees: I do not know the facts of the case to which my hon. Friend is referring. I am satisfied that the information that I had was sufficient to deal with the matters which I put to the House and that that information was not subverted. If hon. Members look again at the statement that I made to the House in the


first instance, they will see that was what I was concerned with. I hardly see how it could be subverted by anybody from outside.

Mr. Hastings: Has the attention of the Secretary of State been drawn to the television broadcast of the "World in Action" programme on 7th February which seemed specifically designed to further the interests of Agee and Hosenball together with their British supporters without a serious or fair attempt at achieving a balance? Will he look into the motives of those responsible?

Mr. Rees: I do not recall seeing the programme. As someone with responsibility in another way for the BBC, it seems to me that 50 per cent. of people think that any programme is biased in a manner contrary to their own views.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Does my right hon. Friend realise that Labour Members, unlike Opposition Members, are not prepared to condemn individuals without evidence, albeit that they are foreigners, and that we are not prepared to leave such matters to the private and, in a sense, irresponsible decision of a Home Secretary? With due respect to my right hon. Friend, he will not be the Home Secretary for the next 10 years. It may be a Member from the present Opposition, who will not have the confidence that we have in my right hon. Friend. Will he now give a categorical assurance that he will put in train a review of the procedures so that evidence against an individual can he heard and refuted, that the procedures will be open and accessible, and that we shall not in future have a slur cast on our system of justice and our proud tradition of individual liberty?

Mr. Rees: I fully understand the problem. There are 9 million visitors to this country in a year. I have the responsibility which I indicated to the House for people visiting this country. The procedure is not a slur on British justice.
I cannot agree with my hon. Friend's final remarks about evidence being made available generally. One of the difficulties in this case was that the slightest information would have put at risk, and made it very easy to identify, the people from whom we get information.

Mr. Speaker: I have given a very good run on this subject, and I propose to allow two more questions from each side. I remind hon. Members that there is another statement to follow and two applications under Standing Order No. 9. I honestly believe that I have given the House a fair opportunity to question the Home Secretary on this matter.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Would the Home Secretary, without wasting the time of the House, simply publish a list of the European countries in which there is a right of appeal against deportation of foreign residents? This is something unique in this country. The Minister for the Interior in France can deport someone as and when he pleases—just like that! Perhaps those hon. Members on the Left who are complaining about this incident should look at France.

Hon. Members: That does not make it right.

Mr. Rees: I think it is a unique situation that people who are visiting this country have the right of appeal against deportation. It needs to be looked at very firmly from time to time because of the power that is put in the hands of the Home Secretary. I have carried out the law as it is, and I believe that I made the right decision.

Mr. Ron Thomas: Can my right hon. Friend even begin to justify a system under which an accused person has no indication of the evidence against him, and in which he then has to throw out random questions to the assessors in the hope that through a twinkle in the eye he may get an indication of that evidence? The nebulous statement that my right hon. Friend has just read out was typical of statements from totalitarian countries when they are meting out similar punishments.

Mr. Rees: My action would be reminiscent of a totalitarian country if I were taking a British citizen with whose views I disagreed and deporting him out of the United Kingdom. But I have no power to do that. I am dealing with the problem of people visiting this country. They can come here as visitors, and I have to exercise my discretion over what is conducive to the public good. I had to consider that when Mr. Thorsen


arrived at a port the other day. My hon. Friend's analogy with totalitarian countries is not on all fours at all.

Mr. Adley: Would the Home Secretary agree that while some concern may be expressed by well-meaning people, we can expect in the next few days that those who shout loudest will be those who had the loudest voices when Lord Home expelled 105 spies to Russia?

Mr. Rees: Only a couple of days ago I let someone out of prison and although I was not in the House I read in Hansard the reports of what was said. The comments made then depicted me as something of a flaming radical. Two days later I am being portrayed as a flaming reactionary. You pays your penny and takes your choice.

Mr. Spriggs: Is the Home Secretary aware that many of us wonder why two people either with work permits or who were visitors to the United Kingdom are being deported with information which is prejudicial to the safety of the State? Why is he not taking proceedings to prosecute these people here in the United Kingdom where they are alleged to have committed offences? Has the Home Secretary seen the Early-Day Motion on right of information to this House? Will he consider the position put by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) in deciding cases of this nature?

Mr. Rees: On the second point, of course under the Immigration Act 1971 the House has the right to look at procedures which it gives to the Home Secretary to carry out. On the question of work permits, I will give information about that in each case, of coming here as a visitor, extending the stay as a freelance writer, and so on. On the question of information which it may be possible to publish from abroad, this illustrates the point that I have no power to stop people from saying what they like to say. It is a question whether they should say it as visitors to this country.

Mr. Alexander Lyon: Mr. Alexander Lyon rose—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) can pursue his application under Standing Order No. 9 after the next statement.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURE MINISTERS)

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Silkin): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall report to the House on the meeting of the Council of Ministers (Agriculture) on 14th and 15th February 1977. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary led the United Kingdom delegation.
The Council agreed on a Community regulation on fisheries conservation, subject only to a reservation by the Danish Minister, which I hope he will be able to withdraw in the next few days.
As I have frequently explained to the House, it is vital that we retain the right to introduce national conservation measures in our sovereign waters as a safeguard, should the Community fail to act effectively to preserve fish stocks. I am pleased to tell the House that our right to do this has been restated in a Community regulation.
Among the other provisions of this regulation are a ban on North Sea herring fishing during March and April and a review of the situation thereafter, an immediate reduction in the allowable by-catch of protected species taken in industrial fishing from 25 per cent. to 20 per cent. and a further reduction to 15 per cent. at the beginning of 1978, agreement that the Commission will make proposals on the rules governing mesh sizes by mid-March, and the establishment of a closed area for the fishing of Norway pout in the North Sea off the coast of Scotland from 21st February until 31st March. The latter will help to protect valuable stocks of immature white fish, particularly haddock and whiting, which are otherwise at risk.
Our concern at the earlier failure to reach agreement on an effective EEC conservation measure in this area led the Government to place an order before the House last week creating a closed area for Norway pout fishing. The Council has now agreed, subject to the withdrawal of the Danish reservation, to the boundaries we proposed for the closed area. The Commission will make proposals on the basis of scientific studies on further Community action from 1st August.


The agreement on conservation represents a major advance since the Community has accepted the need for the measures for which we have pressed; and the right to take national action, if necessary, has been retained.
My hon. Friend again raised in the Council the need for Community action to correct the present unfair method of calculating pigmeat monetary compensatory amounts. The Commission is considering this, and I hope that an early solution can be found.
Mr. Gundelach presented to the Council the Commission's proposals on agricultural prices for 1977–78. The Commission proposes an average increase in Community support prices in units of account of about 3 per cent. and for changes in green currencies, including a devaluation of the green pound reducing the sterling monetary compensatory amounts by 8 percentage points.
My hon. Friend made the United Kingdom's position clear. It is essential that the settlement contributes to food price restraint and to the reduction of structural surpluses. We, therefore, found it hard to justify any price increase for products in structural surplus, in particular milk.
On the green pound my hon. Friend once again made clear the Government's position that any change would be made only in the overall national interest.
The discussion on the prices proposals was very much a preliminary one and will be resumed at the next Agriculture Council on 14th-15th March.
The Council also agreed to extend the suspension of the common customs tariff on new potatoes until 31st March and on maincrop until 15th April. This will help to keep down shop prices.

Mr. Peyton: The right hon. Gentleman has made an important and welcome statement on fisheries. His hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary is much to be congratulated on having brought home with him a useful agreement. I am in no way qualifying what I said when I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will take this opportunity to acknowledge the understanding shown by other members of the Community of the real concern that this country feels on these issues.
May I raise two points on fisheries? What point have we now reached on the question of the 50-mile limit? Secondly, I am concerned about enforcement. The more we go into details on this matter over the greatly extended areas with which we are now dealing, the more enforcement seems to me to be a very complicated and difficult problem which is much easier to talk about than to achieve.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the green pound. Am I right in thinking that he is slightly changing his posture here? Secondly, on the pigmeat mcas, will he acknowledge the present unfair method of calculation? I have asked the Minister this question before. Am I not right in thinking that he could have secured a revision of this unfair method had he agreed to a marginal devaluation of the green pound three or four months ago?

Mr. Silkin: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) for his initial remark on fisheries. My hon. Friend and I tried to build on the work which was started by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, and we did so in the knowledge that we have— and I have not hesitated to make this point in Brussels—the whole House with us on this question.
As I have told the House before, the question of the 50-mile limit is not germane to the immediate question of the necessary conservation measures to be taken in February. But we have not lost sight of that limit. We have these initial conservation measures, and I hope that they will be followed up by others. They are only a start, and we can now direct ourselves to the other important question which the right hon. Gentleman raised.
Enforcement will be difficult. I acknowledge that from the start. I think that I acknowledged it when we were passing the Fishery Limits Bill. That does not mean that it should not be done, however. There is an almost unique historic development in that the Soviet Government have sent representatives to Brussels to negotiate. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office will be taking his part in those negotiations.
I turn now to the green pound. I am not quite sure that posture is the right


word to use, but if it is, my posture has been exactly the same since my maiden speech as Minister of Agriculture on 22nd October last year, as the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym), who heard the speech, God help him, and who is present now, can corroborate. I said then that there was nothing mystical about the green pound. I do not say that it is good or bad, simply that it exists. Since it exists it must be used in the national interest. That remains my position.
When my hon. Friend made the point about the pigmeat mcas in the Council chamber yesterday he was supported by the French and Irish delegates. He did not stand alone on this issue. The pigmeat mcas are based on a total miscalculation. It may be true that had I given way on the green pound I might have got the Council at that stage to be generous in the fair recalculation of mcas. Equally, if I had perhaps offered the Council the Crown jewels it would also have done so. However, this is a fair and equitable change that we are suggesting, and we intend to abide by it.

Mr. Jay: In congratulating my right hon. Friend on the firm attitude that he is taking on these crucial matters, may I ask him to reaffirm his basic assurance that until we have a real reform of the CAP involving lower prices he will not agree to a devaluation of the green pound?

Mr. Silkin: The assurance that I will give my right hon. Friend—and I am not evading the question because this is obviously one of the facts to be considered—is that I believe that we have a strong position on the green pound, and that that is, in the way that these things are, a negotiable instrument. I shall wait to see what I am offered for it.

Mr. Powell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his care to preserve in formula and in deed our right to protect our own sovereign waters is both noted and widely appreciated? Will he use the same methods when he comes to the renegotiation of the common fisheries policy in order to secure what the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) calls the understanding of our partners in the Community?

Mr. Silkin: The right hon. Gentleman once gave me the excellent advice that

every house had both a front door and a back door. The wise negotiator uses both.

Mr. James Johnson: Does my right hon. Friend agree with the proposition that if we were to continue to allow nations like the Danes to undertake industrial fishing as they were doing there would be no fish left for our own fishermen in our own waters? Hence, although no one would dub my right hon. Friend a chauvinist, is he aware that we applaud his nationalist stand on behalf of our own people, and that if he can continue in that we shall be very happy indeed?

Mr. Silkin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. If there were enough fish for everyone in the world there would be no argument. We start with the basic necessity of conserving fish stocks in our sovereign waters.

Mr. Geraint Howells: I should like to congratulate the Minister on being able to persuade the other Council Ministers that there is a need to conserve our fishing industry and a need for measures to that end for this country. I am delighted that he was able to do that.
Will he give an assurance to the pig producers in this country that the mcas will be changed in the near future? Does he honestly believe that the 8 per cent. devaluation of the green pound will restore confidence in the livestock sector of the industry, particularly in beef?

Mr. Silkin: On the main point, I think that my position has been stated so often that I would be wearying the House if I engaged in otiose repetition. It would be a splendid thing if I could make all the decisions on pigmeat mcas by myself. I am sure that they would be very good and very wise decisions, but the hon. Gentleman, in being kind enough to mention my negotiating skill, as he put it, knows that I have to deal with eight other countries and the Commission.

Mr. Robert Hughes: May I add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend on the fish conservation measures? May I also express the hope that the congratulations he has received from all quarters of the House will not go to his head? Will he proceed on the important issues of limits with the same degree of vigour


and tenacity as have won him this big breakthrough in the present negotiations?

Mr. Silkin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said. I can assure him that the congratulations will not go to my head. I have had other receptions from other hon. Members and they never went to my head. I shall keep in mind what he said about limits.

Mr. Watt: I, too, congratulate the Minister on his considerable achievement in securing some measure to conserve our stocks. Will he not concede that the fishermen know best and insist that having a 50-mile conservation zone round our shores from which we can exclude our EEC partners with the small mesh nets is the most effective way of conserving stocks?
Is the Minister aware that the measures he recently took to help pig producers have had no effect? Does he believe that either the CFP or the CAP will ever be fair to the British producer or consumer?

Mr. Silkin: The hon. Gentleman has asked me a triple-barrelled question. I am very much aware of the views about the 50-mile limit. I have tried to deal with the question before. It is of use to me in Brussels that the House is so unanimous on this issue. After all, in a sense we have to win back something that was given away in the Treaty of Accession.
This is only the second week in which the pigmeat subsidy has been operating, but I understand that 80 per cent. of the subsidy is going to the pigmeat producers. I had that checked before I came here, and that does not seem to me to be a bad average.
On the third point, we shall all have to do our best, shall we not, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: That is what I was about to suggest. Right hon. and hon. Members know that I am very jealous of the rights of the House to question in detail what goes on in the Council of Ministers, but I should be helped in this matter if hon. Members would try to make their questions as brief as possible.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: Will my right hon. Friend take it that he deserves our congratulations on the strong stand which he

has taken on behalf of this country in all matters affecting the EEC, and he is, indeed, a mitigating influence against the patent disadvantage of our having joined the EEC? May he go from strength to strength.

Mr. Silkin: I note my hon. Friend's approbation. I intend to go from strength to strength.

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I suggest that the Minister does not answer every compliment?

Mr. Peter Mills: Will the Minister acknowledge that the costs of production of British agriculture have risen alarmingly, and will he agree also that home production is falling fast? Do his announcement today and the stand which he is taking help home food production or not?

Mr. Silkin: I have very much in mind what you have said, Mr. Speaker. I agree that there has obviously been a rise in costs in Britain as well as throughout the Community in general. The hon. Gentleman may have forgotten that there are two transitional steps to be taken this year which will raise costs, which were in the Treaty of Accession.

Mr. McNamara: Now that we have got out of the way the congratulations for what he has done for the inshore fleet, will my right hon. Friend recognise that we are still deeply concerned about the prospects for the deep-water fleet? When can we hope to have something done about that? Second, with regard to the green pound, is my right hon. Friend aware that if the Government are to have any success whatever in their negotiations over wages policy or any other such policies, it is essential that there be no acceptance of any of the argument put forward by other members of the Community or by the Opposition to affect the present value of the green pound?

Mr. Silkin: I take what my hon. Friend says about the green pound. The question of deep-water fishing remains still very much with us. This is in part where the negotiations with third countries, for example, Norway in particular, come in. The matter of Iceland still remains some-where in our consciousness. I hope that


these matters will be resolved in the near future.

Mr. Bowden: I can give the right hon. Gentleman only one cheer out of three, but I nevertheless congratulate him to that extent. Will he accept, however, that there is still a long way to go on conservation and that time is of the essence of the matter? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the difficulties of the South Coast, with the overfishing and illegal fishing which is still going on, and will he not again consider the possibility of bringing in a ban on beam trawling to allow time for this area to recover?

Mr. Silkin: There are many conservation measures which, had I had the time or had it been tactically right at this moment to introduce them, I should have recommended to the House. All the measures which people are now talking about generally are well under consideration.

Mr. Gould: Did my right hon. Friend ask why CAP prices are fixed in terms of an agricultural unit of account which is aligned to currencies in the snake as opposed to the average of all EEC currencies, and did he point out that the effect of this distortion is to push up EEC prices 19 per cent. higher than they should be and also to disguise the fact that the green mark—to say nothing of the green guilder, the green krone and the green Belgian franc—is substantially more out of line than is the green pound?

Mr. Silkin: Much of that is true. As my hon. Friend knows, the original method of calculating the green currencies was as he put it; it bore no relation to the snake.

Mr. Shepherd: Will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that his attitude to the mcas in relation to pigmeat calculations borders on the smug and self-satisfied? Will he recognise that pig producers are still bitterly concerned about their industry, in spite of his temporary subsidy, and will he maintain the full force of argument for recalculation in relation to these compensatory amounts?

Mr. Silkin: I hope that I am not being smug or complacent about it. It is a very difficult problem about which I care a great deal. We are doing our best. That

was why we introduced the national subsidy in the first place. But the long-term solution must be a recalculation of mcas, and I am doing my best to ensure that that is so.

Mr. Prescott: My right hon. Friend's statement represents a notable achievement on which I offer my congratulations and the welcome of fishermen in my area, but is it not a fact that it does not enshrine the principle of exclusive coastal State control and conservation, a principle which was developed in a formula worked out by the European Socialist Group in the European Parliament? We envisage this as a permanent part of the European policy, but my right hon. Friend refers to it in his statement as temporary. Will he comment on that?

Mr. Silkin: I was talking about the immediate conservation measures which it was necessary to introduce in this month of February if we were to protect certain fish stocks—I regarded those as absolutely minimal—and that is why they came ahead of time. But perhaps even more important than that was the need to safeguard the right of national action if the Community's conservation measures were not good enough.

Mr. Wiggin: Will the Minister agree that farmers' costs have risen by nearly £1,000 million this year through inflation and other factors, and will he say, either in percentage terms or in money terms, how much of those costs are being recouped by this agreement?

Mr. Silkin: I do not quite know what agreement the hon. Gentleman means. If he means the proposals of the Commission—they are rather detailed— they will be available in the Vote Office tomorrow, and the hon. Gentleman can make his calculations. I am being a little cagey about this because there are two slightly different calculations made on both sides.

Mr. Torney: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement, but will he agree that devaluation of the green pound would not necessarily help pig producers because it would force up the price of pig feeding stuffs? Further, will he take it that the great majority of British housewives are extremely concerned about the continuing rise in food prices, and he will


have widespread support from housewives in his fight against the attempt of the Common Market to force up the price of food in our shops?

Mr. Silkin: I agree with my hon. Friend, and I have pointed out to the House that a devaluation of the green pound—unless one removed the whole of the green pound, which no one is advocating—would simply have an equal effect on the increase in the cost of feeding stuffs.

Mr. Spearing: Is it not a fact that the Common Market Agriculture Ministers whom my right hon. Friend visits are not representative of consumers in the Council, and, if they are not, can he tell the House who is? Second, reverting to my right hon. Friend's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Gould), if prices in the EEC are 19 per cent. higher than they ought to be by calculation, why is there a need shortly to increase them anyway?

Mr. Silkin: My hon. Friend is putting much of the argument which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary was putting yesterday. With regard to his first point, I thought it very encouraging that Commissioner Gundelach himself talked about the consumer and for the first time gave an equality between consumer and producer. As I see it, my job as Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is to keep the balance between all those three parts of my Department.

Mr. Corbett: Will my right hon. Friend encourage the Parliamentary Secretary, who speaks for Britain on these matters in these few months, to stick firmly to the line that it would be the height of madness to lead to price increases where there are structural surpluses, and will he try to explain better than he has done that an across-the-board devaluation of the green pound of any significant size would be as damaging to sectors of the agricultural industry as it would be to the consumer?

Mr. Silkin: My hon. Friend is quite right. But I have made that point about the damage to agriculture, though not all sectors of it are affected in the same way.
As for my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, he stuck very firmly to the text given him by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Ioan Evans: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the action that he has taken to defend the interests of British farmers and consumers. However, rather than seeking to amend or to reform the common agriculture policy, will he seek the ending of it altogether, bearing in mind that it works very much to the disadvantage of the long-term interests of our farmers and increases prices to consumers?

Mr. Silkin: I shall occupy the Presidency for the next four and a half months. My hon. Friend gives me too much weight in that assembly. I do not think that it can be done in four and a half months.

POST OFFICE (MAIL DELIVERIES)

Mr. Tebbit: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter, of which, Mr. Speaker, I have given you prior notice, and which is so urgent that it should have precedence over the business of the House already set down for consideration; namely,
the failure of the Post Office to release mail held at the Whitechapel sorting office since the beginning of the recent unofficial dispute.
That the matter is specific cannot, I think, be disputed.
To establish its importance, I regret that I must refer briefly to the cause of the dispute. It was an unofficial dispute which arose when the Post Office sought to alleviate unemployment in East London by recruiting additional workers, a move which would have had the effect of reducing the amount of overtime available to those already employed. It was settled in a manner which did not resolve that matter and by an agreement which has not been made public. Nor did it resolve the problem of how the backlog of mail would be cleared. The only clear part of the settlement was that disciplinary proceedings against a trade union official, a Mr. Taylor, would be dropped.
In fact, the Post Office has not been able to bring in additional staff to deal with the backlog of mail. Millions of letters are now locked up, although newly posted mail is being dealt with normally. This is important because, clearly, if


letters posted today are being dealt with normally whereas those posted a week or a fortnight ago are still locked up, the mails are being illegally held back and delayed in defiance of the Post Office Act.
It is also important and urgent to my constituents. One company has told me this morning that it is giving notice of lay-off to its employees because money and orders posted to it have not been received. Others, not only from my constituency but from the constituencies of other hon. Members, have told me of similar difficulties.
It is urgent because jobs are at stake as well as because personal distress is being caused.
Finally, it is urgent because it is possible that legal action may soon be brought to secure the release of the mails and, as you, Mr. Speaker, and this House know, that might again involve the risk of confrontation between the Attorney-General and the law of the land.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration; namely
the failure of the Post Office to release mail held at the Whitechapel sorting office since the beginning of the recent unofficial dispute.
As I have told the House before, it is not for me to pronounce on the importance of an issue. My task is merely to decide whether the business of the House should be changed and that the matter in question should have precedence.
Under Standing Order No. 9, I take into account the several factors outlined in the Order, but I am not required to give the reasons for my decision.
I have given careful consideration to the representations made by the hon. Gentleman, but I have to rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

MR. AGEE AND MR. HOSENBALL

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for

the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration; namely,
the proposed deportations of Mr. Agee and Mr. Hosenball.
The urgency and importance of this matter cannot be doubted since these men will be deported in a very short time without any debate in the House unless this procedure is adopted.
Since the matter is well known to you, Mr. Speaker, I need delay the House only to argue two matters. The first is that, when the House took away the right of appeal in these cases in 1971, the then Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling), said, in introducing the new procedure of "the three wise men", that he felt there was a difficulty if it appeared that these decisions were justiciable legal decisions; they were executive political decisions subject to the House of Commons and not to the courts of law. In the light of that assurance, it is right that the House should consider whether, in this case, these two men have been treated justly and fairly.
It has been argued here today that they are visitors to Britain and not British subjects. But, even as visitors, they have some rights.
The security of the State, though an important consideration for us all, is only as important as that which we are trying to protect, which is the nature of our democracy and the way in which we treat people who are minorities.
The second matter is perhaps even more important. This is the first contested case since 1971 when these new procedures were introduced. Because of that, there is great concern about the way in which the procedures have operated in this case. It is clear from the speech of the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet that the intention was to operate these procedures in a way very different from that which has been operated in this case. I submit, therefore, that the House should consider whether these procedures should continue and whether they have been operated properly in relation to these proposed deportations.
I urge, therefore, that this is an appropriate matter for consideration under Standing Order No. 9.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration; namely,
the proposed deportations of Mr. Agee and Mr. Hosenball.
I listened with great care to the exchanges in the House earlier this afternoon, and obviously I know of the strong feeling in the House. But I have to take into account the several factors set out in the Order and to give no reasons for my decision.
I have given careful consideration to the representations of the hon. Gentleman, but I have to rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

BILL PRESENTED

DOGS (CONTROL OF NUISANCES)

Mr. Peter Viggers presented a Bill to make further provision as to the powers and functions of local authorities with respect to the control of nuisances caused by dogs; and for connected purposes; and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 25th February and to be printed. [Bill 66.]

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND PRIVACY

4.39 p.m.

Mr. Tom Litterick: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to further the free interchange of opinion in the United Kingdom by providing for greater public access to official information; to safeguard the privacy of personal information collected and retained for official purposes; to make provision with respect to the keeping, disclosure, correction and dissemination of such information; to make further provision for the content and accuracy of certain official documents; and for purposes connected with the aforesaid matters.
It seems peculiarly appropriate on a day when the House has been advised that two people are to be deported on the basis of, to them, unknown and unknowable information that such a Bill as mine should be brought before the House. The Bill seeks to fulfil two major purposes. In doing so, I should advise the House that it owes much to long-established practice in America and Sweden.
Its first major purpose is to open up the stores of public information held by Government Departments and to make them available to the public, with certain specified exceptions relating to, for example, military, security, police and other information. Its second purpose is to protect the individual citizen. In fact the largest clause—Clause 2—is devoted to the protection of the individual from the potential power which the State hold over him merely by its collection and storage of individual records.
Just today, for example, I was told by a former patient of the Central Middlesex Hospital that he had, quite by accident, come into possession of his hospital file. Access to such files is strictly forbidden to patients. To his horror this man discovered that in his file he was described as a homosexual and an atheist. That man is in fact a deeply religious and heterosexual man. Had he been allowed the right of access to those records as they were being compiled, or after they had been compiled, a travesty of justice such as this would not have occurred and this inaccurate and damaging information would never have been compiled. Such a record could not have been created if we had a fair and open system of record-keeping.
There can be few hon. Members who are not painfully aware that the processes of government in this country are too secret. This has much to do with growing public dissatisfaction with Governments of every political description. As Members we are only too aware of our great disadvantage in our dealings with the Executive. That disadvantage results from the disparity of information available to us, information which the Executive commands and releases only selectively and for its own purposes. Those purposes are not necessarily the purposes of this House, or the purposes, needs and demands of the British people.
Information is power. We are all aware of that. But we are talking about the power of the State over people. Executive secrecy is justifiable only in specific circumstances, in my opinion, and I think that this is probably the opinion of the majority of hon. Members. Executive secrecy is justifiable only in specific circumstances. Our traditon of government is the opposite—that all official information is secret and that the revelation of publicly held information is justifiable only in exceptional circumstances.
This seems to be the reverse of political common sense. It is contrary to the spirit of democracy, and the longer it persists, the greater is the risk that we aggrandise the power of the Executive at the expense of the democracy and so bring the State into disrepute in the minds of reasonable men and women.
Many proposals have been made in recent years to revitalise our democracy. Most hon. Members are aware that the body politic is not as well as it should be. We have had such measures as the Employment Protection Act, and a measure based on the Bullock proposals may shortly come before us. In the not-

too-distant past even the Conservative Government's Industrial Relations Act specifically referred, as did the Employment Protection Act and the Bullock proposals, to the disclosure of information by powerful organisations such as employers and Government Departments to individual citizens—recognising in doing so that this readjustment of the balance of power between the individual citizen and the State is vital and urgent.
Information is the staple diet of democracy. The exploitation of public ignorance is the key to the demagogue's success and is the enemy of democracy. If we do not meet the people's right to know, and do not do it soon, those who follow us will inherit a degenerated political system in which democracy is a faded and pathetic memory.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Tom Litterick, Mr. Andrew Bowden and Mrs. Margaret Bain.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND PRIVACY

Mr. Tom Litterick accordingly presented a Bill to further the free interchange of opinion in the United Kingdom by providing for greater public access to official information; to safeguard the privacy of personal information collected and retained for official purposes; to make provision with respect to the keeping, disclosure, correction and dissemination of such information; to make further provision for the content and accuracy of certain official documents; and for purposes connected with the aforesaid matters: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 25th February and to be printed. [Bill 67.]

Orders of the Day — SCOTLAND AND WALES BILL

Considered in Committee [Progress, 15th February]

[Mr. OSCAR MURTON in the Chair]

New Clause 40

REFERENDUMS IN SCOTLAND AND WALES

4.46 p.m.

The Chairman: Before I call Amendment (o) in the name of the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner), I wish to point out that the hon. Gentleman has let me know that he wishes to move the amendment with the omission of the last two lines of the text. The amendment appears on page 1730 of the Amendment Paper. The last two lines read:
and each question shall be decided by a majority of valid votes cast in the referendum before any order is made under section 114 of this Act".
Their omission will be in order.

With Amendment (o) we shall take the following amendments:

(e) leave out lines 2 to 5 and insert:
'referendums in all parts of the United Kingdom to determine whether effect is to be given to the provisions of this Act'.

(1) in line 3, after 'and' insert:
'(2) Whether Scotland should remain part of the United Kingdom'.

We are also to discuss the following amendments to the new schedule—Referendums in Scotland and Wales—

(kkk) in line 4, leave out from 'Act to end of line 6.
(lll) in line 8, leave out 'referendums' and insert 'referendum'.
(nnn) in line 11, leave out 'Scottish'.
(ooo) in line 13, leave out 'Scotland' and insert 'the United Kingdom'.
(ppp) in line 15, leave out 'in Scotland'.
(qqq) leave out lines 16 to 20.
(rrr) in line 22, leave out 'Scottish'.
(sss) leave out lines 25 to 27.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. I think that when you referred to Amendment (1) you meant Amendment (i).

The Chairman: I apologise to the Committee. My eyesight is at fault. My copy of the provisional selection list is not very clearly typed. We shall take Amendment (i) in line 4, after second 'and', insert 'the English referendum' with the other amendments, not Amendment (1).

Mr. Onslow: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. That point of order was not the one I had originally wished to raise. May I now raise the other one, which concerns your selection? You have been good enough to select my amendment (1) to the new schedule. Unless my eyes deceive me, a number of others are grouped with it. We have to read a preposterous number of letters of the alphabet before we get the matter right. With Amendment (1) is selected Amendment (mmmmmm), among others, and since that raises a different issue in substance from that which is raised in Amendment (1), although it is no doubt convenient to debate them together, should not Amendment (mmmmmm) be taken to a vote separately?

The Chairman: Perhaps I may reply in general terms. The list of selections is provisional. Should any hon. Member have points about its details to raise, I shall be happy to discuss them with him in the period, which may or may not be prolonged, before the amendments are called. Perhaps that will give some comfort to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. George Cunningham: We cannot go on for weeks and weeks, Mr. Murton, with amendments with letters such as (m m m m m m).

The Chairman: An alternative arrangement is being considered for use at an appropriate time which will make it easier for everyone and possibly prevent me from making a mistake as I did just now, even though that was only a single-letter amendment.

Mr. George Cunningham: I simply suggest, Mr. Murton, that as some amendments have to be debated with the main one, we use the continental device of numbering them "1.16", "1.1000" and so on.

The Chairman: That will be borne in mind.

Mr. George Gardiner: I beg to move Amendment (o), in line 1, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
'(1) There shall be held a referendum in all parts of the United Kingdom on the questions—

(a) whether effect is to be given to the provisions of this Act establishing an elected Assembly and Executive in Scotland, and
(b) whether effect is to be given to the provisions of this Act establishing an elected Assembly in Wales;'.

The reason for the omission of the last two lines of the amendment as it appeared on the Order Paper is that it was drafted as an amendment to the original New Clause 40, since when the Government have made a concession to the effect that they will subsequently make the referendum consultative, not mandatory. In those circumstances, if we had retained the last two lines they would obviously have taken on a significance that was totally unintended when we drew up the amendment.
The purpose of the amendment is to hold a referendum on the provisions of the Bill not only in Scotland and Wales but throughout the United Kingdom—in England and in Northern Ireland, too.
I must start by recording the strongest objection to the cavalier way in which Englishmen and Ulstermen have been treated ever since the Bill was introduced. From the very start there has been the pretence that other parts of the United Kingdom are not affected. Each day's debate, particularly the debate on representation in this House, has demonstrated most clearly that they are. Now this sin is being compounded by the attempt to shut six out of every seven United Kingdom citizens out of a consultative referendum on a major piece of constitutional legisation that may be passed by this House. If this is allowed to happen it will be a travesty of democracy, for which Parliament, the Government and the new Assemblies—if they ever come into being—will pay a bitter price. The Lord President must stop treating England and Northern Ireland in the way that Lord North treated the American colonies.
I refer here specifically to the United Kingdom. I am aware that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) tabled other amendments seeking to extend the referendum to England

alone. I am sorry that for other reasons you did not select one of his amendments for debate, Mr. Murton. I have taken United Kingdom citizenship as the test because I do not believe that we can logically argue that the referendum proposed for Scotland and Wales should be extended to England and still draw a line between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. If there is to be consultation by referendum, all United Kingdom citizens should be consulted, because this is a United Kingdom matter. Constitutionally, this is most certainly so.
In our previous discussions it became very clear that the issue of devolution is inextricably bound up with that of representation in this House. Those on the Government Front Bench may pretend that they can keep those issues separate, but none of us is under any illusion that they can be kept separate for very long. As the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) has pointed out before, with great clarity, the English are being asked to accept a situation in which their Members of Parliament are to have no say over matters devolved to a Scottish Assembly, and yet a band of Members from an over-represented Scotland will continue to decide on equivalent issues for England.
In those circumstances, how can it be suggested that this does not affect the relative influence that the English have over the government of their country, or, for that matter, that the Northern Irish have? This problem is widely recognised. I think that it can be said without much contradiction that if the Bill reaches the statute book in anything like its present form a future Conservative Government will be under immense pressure and will have the strongest grounds to set about the reduction of Scottish and Welsh representation in this House, as was recommended, in the case of Scotland anyway, by the Kilbrandon Commission.
There are already provisions in the Bill for changing United Kingdom legislation. We have referred before in our debates to Clause 18, whereby Scottish Assembly Acts may amend or repeal provisions of Acts of this Parliament, Acts which cover England and Northern Ireland. Then there is the infamous Clause 44, which we have yet to reach, giving the Government power to amend United


Kingdom laws by Order in Council as a consequence of Acts passed by a Scottish Assembly. Further on, when we come to the small print in schedules and so on, we find innumerable United Kingdom institutions that are affected by the proposals in the Bill, the latest evidence to land on our desks coming from the various English tourist boards.
To anyone who disputes this I would put the test of involvement, by asking what would be the situation if all this were the other way round. What kind of argument would we confront from the Scots and the Welsh if it were proposed, instead of a Scottish or Welsh Assembly, to set up only an English Assembly, but still to bring the full number of English Members to this House or even to increase their number proportionately, to continue to vote on Scottish and Welsh matters, which, in the case of England, had already been devolved to an English Assembly? We know very well that there would be uproar in Scotland and Wales. The people there would legitimately see such a proposal as profoundly affecting their constitutional position and changing the very nature of the contract that binds us all together. We know that in those circumstances the Scottish Isolationist Party and the Welsh Isolationist Party would be leading the outcry.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: In view of what the hon. Gentleman has said, do we understand that he represents the English Isolationist Party?

Mr. Gardiner: Most certainly not. All the arguments presented by my hon. Friends earlier in these long debates prove that we see ourselves as defending the United Kingdom, obviously in marked contrast to the hon. Gentleman.
Constitutionally, there can be no doubt that this is a United Kingdom matter upon which we are legislating. Therefore, it is a matter upon which United Kingdom citizens as a whole should be consulted.

Mr. James Sillars: Does this point that constitutional matters are United Kingdom matters mean that, in the view of the hon. Gentleman, the next time that there is a border poll in Ulster on the question of Ulster's future the Welsh, English and Scots should also have a vote in it?

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Gardiner: The poll in Ulster was held on the issue of separation. It was not about changing the constitutional arrangements of the United Kingdom. That is the real difference.
Constitutionally, the case is proved. Economically, it is certainly a United Kingdom matter. Under the Bill, money will be voted each year for devolved services and for payments into loan funds. That money will come from the whole of the United Kingdom and not just from Scotland or Wales. There is also the question of the cost of the Assemblies. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) has extracted the information that it will cost about £39 million to establish the Assemblies and to run them in the first year and also to conduct a referendum on the lines proposed. The Scots will be paying something towards this 39 million and the Welsh will be paying towards it, too, but the English and the Northern Irish will be reaching into their pockets to pay as well. How dare the Government hold a consultative referendum and yet not consult everybody on these matters?
In the English regions there are no illusions that they will not be affected by the measure. All hon. Members have been circulated—this has been referred to before in our debates—with the views of the Tyne and Wear County Council, which has said:
It is the Council's belief that if the Scotland and Wales Bill is enacted it will bring about an economic imbalance favourable to Scotland at the expense of the North East and other English regions and will inevitably lead to the break-up of the fundamental unity of the United Kingdom.
That view has been put forcibly by hon. Members representing North-East constituencies, including the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter). North-east England knows full well that it will be affected by the measure, and yet in the consultative referendum the North-East will be gagged. The same feelings are held on Merseyside, as we know full well from what has been said by the hon. Member for Walton, yet they are also to be gagged on this issue. Again, I ask how dare the Government hold a consultative referendum and yet not consult the regions?
There is a further element to the argument. I am aware that it is touched upon in subsequent amendments that have been proposed for the new schedule and selected for debate. An important part of the argument for a United Kingdom referendum concerns expatriate voters. I and many other hon. Members have received a volume of correspondence, not only from constituents but from other Scottish and Welsh-born people now living in England. From this bundle I have selected just a few letters, because the sentiments expressed in them convey the arguments more clearly than I can. The first one reads:
I will have no vote on the Scottish devolution issue whereas thousands, without any Scottish background or historical interest will vote purely on the grounds of their currently living in Scotland. … If you fail, you will be incurring increasing resentment from Scots everywhere who, like myself are temporarily away from their homeland.
Another letter reads:
One of Scotland's claims to greatness is the fact that her brains and industry have spread far beyond her own boundaries. Are these people, bound by affection and loyalty to their homeland and passionately interested in her future, to be allowed no voice in the deliberations on devolution?
Another letter says:
I find it strange in the extreme that some parts of the United Kingdom should be prevented from speaking with our votes on the future of our country, and wholly unacceptable that Scots should be unable to vote on the future of Scotland.
A letter from a Scot in my own constituency reads:
Scotland is our native land and we should, I think, have as much of a say in what is proposed for its future as sassenachs who happen now to be in Scotland and who will have a vote in the referendum.
Yet another letter says:
It … passes belief that a vote of this kind, on a matter so close to the hearts of so many Scotsmen who have never questioned their status within the United Kingdom, should be closed to them simply on the grounds that they have moved … by force of circumstance or of their own choice, across a frontier which has had no serious significance since 1603".

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Has the hon. Member by any chance received a letter from the Secretary of State for Scotland complaining that he would not have a vote in the referendum or a letter from my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart)?

Mr. Gardiner: No, but I greatly look forward to receiving such representations from them.
There should be no doubt on the Government Front Bench about the strong feelings that exist on this matter. The letters from which I have quoted have all come from Scots, but I know that Welsh people living in this country nurse similarly deep feelings.
Of course, there are difficulties. I know that the Minister of State, when he turned his mind to this question on, I think, Thursday of last week, said that he thought that a special register—a point that is covered in subsequent amendments—was untenable in both principle and practice. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) expanded on that during the debate last night. The Minister of State also said, last Thursday:
Precisely because ours is a United Kingdom we have no legal concept of Scottish or Welsh nationality,"—[Official Report, 10th February 1977; Vol. 925, c. 1805.]
I accept that there would be difficulties in having a special register for expatriate voters, but so many innovations are introduced in the Bill that I cannot understand why we could not have one more. If Ministers do hold strong views that such a register would be impractical and untenable in both principle and practice, the obvious way out would be to hold a total United Kingdom referendum. The expatriate voters would then automatically be enfranchised and able to deliver their view. The view would be given on the measure as it affects the whole of the United Kingdom as well as on how it affects Scots and the Welsh.
The argument has been put forward that to have one referendum throughout the United Kingdom, with separate declarations in Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland, could mean different verdicts between one part of the United Kingdom and another, and that that would impose a tremendous strain upon our constitution. That argument has been seriously advanced as an objection to having the referendum on a United Kingdom basis.
Not long ago, when the referendum on the EEC was under debate, the same difficulty was raised—that is, what would happen if the Scots voted "No" and the English voted "Yes"—but in the event.


as we know, all the component parts of the United Kingdom voted "Yes". The Government did not think that there was a sufficiently great danger of different verdicts being given by different parts of the United Kingdom for them not to proceed with a United Kingdom referendum on that issue. Those who put forward the argument that our constitution would be brought under still greater strain if different verdicts were returned should turn their minds to that point. I ask them to reflect upon it and also upon the consequences of deliberately excluding six out of every seven United Kingdom citizens from a consultative referendum on such a constitutional issue.
Now that it is to be a consultative rather than a mandatory referendum, the argument for taking into it all parts of the United Kingdom is vastly stronger. The Government argument now is that the Scots and Welsh people should decide finally on the fate of the Bill and that before Parliament finally decides it should know what those people think. But in reaching its final decision, should Parliament deny to itself the evidence of what the citizens of England and Northern Ireland think of this measure? Those who object to this course and raise the great danger that is inherent in conflicting verdicts should consider that they are saying that if there is an objection from England or Northern Ireland to such a constitutional change it is far better to stifle it, to pretend that it is not there, and to carry on regardless, rather than to allow it open and proper expression. That is the most dangerous argument of all.
If that feeling is there, it must be allowed expression, if only to protect whatever Assemblies may eventually come into being. If the Bill is passed in its present form, we all have grave fears of a bitter backlash of resentment in many parts of the United Kingdom. I have already referred to the overwhelming pressure that will build up for an adjustment of the Scottish and Welsh representation in the House. That groundswell from the people of England or Northern Ireland will be all the more angry if they know that they were deliberately denied a voice in the consultative referendum.
In these circumstances, all defences against an English backlash would be removed, because the Government could not tell those people that the issue had been put to them in a consultative referendum and that they had accepted it.
The Government are proclaiming that their purpose in the Bill is to maintain the integrity of the United Kingdom. I can think of no better way of destroying that integrity than by gagging the people of England and Northern Ireland in what is now to be a consultative referendum on a proposal that directly affects them. I appeal to the Minister to think again.

Mr. Roy Hughes: The hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) seeks to extend the referendum to the whole of the United Kingdom. I oppose that idea and I think that the referendum should be curtailed. When I voted in the early hours of this morning in favour of a referendum for Wales it was a reluctant vote.
I admire the contributions of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and I particularly admired his stand on the Common Market. His speech yesterday—and particularly his exchanges with the Leader of the House—illustrated the bogus nature of the call for a referendum.
On 5th February, The Times in its second leader dealt with the pros and cons of the referendum and made one point which was particularly appealing to me. It said:
no referendum should be held until there is a valid constitutional reason for doing so".
There is a vast difference between the proposals for Scotland and those for Wales and, with the benefit of hindsight, I think that it would have been better if they had been dealt with separately.
The proposals for Scotland are far more fundamental and I have been guided in considering them by the majority of my Scottish colleagues and the voice of the whole Scottish Labour movement. We know that the unity of the United Kingdom is at stake there and the argument for a referendum justifies the criteria set out in The Times editorial.
I am all for the unity of the United Kingdom, both economically and politically. Separatism for Wales is not on


the agenda at all. There is no constitutional reason for a referendum in Wales. All the hysteria which has been artifically whipped up has been unnecessary and unjustified.
Let me justify my view by reminding the House of the proposals for Wales. The Welsh Assembly would be the top tier of local government in Wales. As a spokesman for the Law Society in Wales said on BBC radio on Monday morning, the Welsh proposals are for a county council. The idea would be to have one tier of local government under the Assembly and I think that it was the dreadful reorganisation of local government by the last Conservative Government that gave the impetus to a Welsh Assembly as a top tier of local government in Wales.

5.15 p.m.

Sir Raymond Gower: Will the hon. Gentleman agree that there is nothing in the Bill to justify what he has said?

Mr. Hughes: It is a matter of opinion. I suggest that the Assembly will be the top tier of local government in Wales. The Secretary of State for Wales has said on many occasions that the first task of the Assembly will be to draw up proposals for the simplification of the structure of the local government in Wales.
On 3rd February representatives of the three old county boroughs of Wales—Cardiff, Swansea and Newport—commented on the relationship of local government to the proposed Assembly. Cardiff City Council's chief executive, Mr. Henry Mansfield, said:
In order to make a concerted attack on a city's inter-related problems you need a unitary authority—to restore, in effect, the old county borough system. Of course in Wales the prospect of reorganisation is linked with the setting up of a Welsh Assembly.
The secretary of the council of our second city, Swansea, Mr. Brian Meller, said:
We hope that unitary authorities are brought about as a result of devolution.
A third comment came from the representative of the local authority in my constituency, Mr. Tony Clifford, the deputy chief executive. He said:
Most people would agree that reorganisation as far as Newport was concerned was little more than a disaster".

Those are the kinds of ideas that are floating about in Wales on the creation of a Welsh Assembly. Hon. Members might think that I am being parochial, but it is a parochial issue in Wales.

Mr. Robert Adley: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. Will you ascertain whether the hon. Member is speaking to New Clause 40 or the amendments that we are discussing?

The Chairman: The hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes) is developing his argument on the amendments that are now under discussion, but I hope that he will closely relate his argument to the substance of the amendments.

Mr. Hughes: I have tried to point out that the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) is seeking to extend the principle of a referendum. There is no need for a referendum in Wales.
An Assembly would result in the democratisation of many of our nominated bodies. There is also the question of the Welsh Office itself. So many of its functions and so much of its decision-making is now done by the Civil Service. Those functions should be democratised and those decisions should be made by elected representatives. Any reasonable person would agree that the simple and basic proposals for Wales do not justify a referendum. Every month Parliament passes legislation of far greater consequence.
An Assembly for Wales was a clear and specific promise at the last General Election. That promise was made after a unanimous request by Welsh Labour hon. Members. We had two years of meetings about it and eventually on 6th November 1973 we came to a unanimous decision. A total of 26 Welsh Labour hon. Members were present at that meeting. At the time we boasted that we were ahead of the Scots because we had made a clear decision. Some Opposition English Members seemed not to notice what we were doing, but that was not our responsibility. Welsh hon. Members at least are irrecoverably committeed to the proposals and had that commitment been honoured there would be no need for a debate about a referendum in Wales.

Mr. Julian Amery: I sometimes wonder whether we are in


wonderland or looking in the looking glass. We have reached a stage which is close to absurdity. Originally the Bill was put before the House as something on which the House of Commons had to make up its mind. Then, in response to pressure, the Government accepted the idea of a mandatory referendum. Having considered the implications of that for the sovereignty of Parliament, they then agreed that the referendum should be consultative. I can think of no way in which one could undermine the sovereignty of Parliament more effectively than by a consultative referendum. It could well put Parliament and people at loggerheads.
To get round that, the Government decided to limit the referendum to two sections of the United Kingdom—Scotland and Wales. That might overcome a clash between Parliament and the United Kingdom people but it remains an illogical device. Nevertheless, subject to what may come on Report or through amendments in another place, Parliament has now decided that that is the way in which we should go forward.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) has made the logical proposal that if we are to have a consultative referendum—and I think that that is folly—it had better be United Kingdom-wide. No one can deny that the Bill has implications for the whole of the United Kingdom, for its Parliament and for its people, both economically and sentimentally, and for the people of Scottish and Welsh descent who live in England or overseas.
It is optimistic to say that the Bill is designed purely to give more efficient government to Scotland and Wales. Yet, even so, there would be far-reaching implications for the United Kingdom in economic and perhaps in social terms.
But there are widespread apprehensions that the Bill may be the beginning of the slippery slope to separatism. No one can deny that that is possible because that is what Scottish National Party Members and to some extent what Welsh Members have said about it. One cannot get away from the fact that this has enormous implications for the United Kingdom as a whole.
We are not dealing with a problem of local option. It is not a question of

whether the pubs in Carlisle should be municipally or privately owned. We are dealing with something that affects us all and that involves a fundamental change in the government of the United Kingdom.
Hon. Members on the Liberal Benches would like to see a federal constitution. I am not in favour of that but I can see the administrative logic in it. But this Bill is not concerned with administration. It represents a clear concession to the nationalist feeling in Scotland and Wales. We are therefore making a fundamental change in the unitary constitution of the United Kingdom as it has existed for the best part of two and a half centuries.
I do not know whether people have thought through the implications of a consultative referendum. Let us suppose that the result in Scotland is 51 per cent. in favour and 49 per cent. against. From opinion polls taken in England we see that the great majority of English people would think differently. Is the future Who would be that 1 per cent.? I under-of Scotland to turn on that 1 per cent.? stand that there are more than half a million people of Irish descent living in Scotland. There are also not a few people who have their origins in Pakistan, Bangladesh, West Africa and West India. Is the decision to turn on their vote rather than on the vote of millions who live in this country and who are of Scottish origin? It really seems very peculiar.

5.30 p.m.

The question of the Ulster referendum has been raised. There was a referendum in Ulster on the question of separatism. The result was clear to me. I think that if we had another referendum there we should find that the people of Ulster would be in favour of the revival of something like Stormont, yet this House of Commons is not prepared to concede that because it does not wish to see a majority possibly oppressing a minority.

Are we to say that a majority of 1 per cent. or 2 per cent. will allow the Scottish nationalists to dominate those in Scotland who still wish to see the unity of the United Kingdom maintained in its present form?

The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. John Smith): Will the right hon. Gentleman explain a little more clearly his reference to people of Irish descent and people of Bangladeshi or Pakistani origins living in Scotland? Is he suggesting that in some way the votes of people of Irish descent, perhaps three generations old, or the votes of the people who have come more recently from the Indian subcontinent, are qualitatively of less value than those of people of Scottish descent?

Mr. Amery: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has intervened, because he has played into my hands. As I stand here, I deny that there is such a thing as a Scottish nation, or a Welsh nation, or an English nation. The fact that one happens to live north of the border or west of Offa's Dyke does not constitute nationality. There is a Scottish tradition, a Welsh tradition, an English tradition and an Irish tradition, of which we can all be proud—and a Bangladeshi tradition, a Pakistani tradition, a West Indian tradition and a West African tradition, of which we can all be proud. However, the fact that one happens to live in a particular area of the country does not make one a Scotsman and does not entitle one to talk about or to advocate the separation of a particular geographical area from the rest of Britain.
There is a British dimension. That is what we want to hold on to. If the people of Kent were tomorrow to ask for separation, would the hon. Gentleman come to the House of Commons and recommend to us that we should let Kent split off? Or Cornwall? Of course not. There are economic and security considerations.
I am not saying for one moment that because of a man's Irish origin or his more exotic origin, his vote is worth any less than that of another man. What I am saying is that he is not a Scotsman who can in any way be identified, except by place of residence, and he has less right to determine the future of Scotland than Scotsmen living in England, perhaps millions of them. From looking at the telephone directory, I get the impression that there are more Scotsmen in England than there are north of the border.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: The right hon. Gentleman has said that there

is no such community as the Welsh nation. I invite him to come to the National Institute in Cardiff on 5th March and repeat that statement.

Mr. Amery: I am myself at least one-quarter Welsh in blood. I am very proud of the Welsh tradition. The whole of England is filled with people from the Welsh country. I believe that the family of my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) came to the Midlands from Wales originally. We can all be proud of the Welsh tradition. The right hon. Gentleman sits for an Irish seat, is of Welsh origin and his family moved into England. We are all mixed up.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: You are.

Mr. Amery: However, no one is as mixed up as the Minister of State.
This is the central point, and it is why my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate was right to move the amendment.
The idea that a photo-finish consultative referendum in Scotland should be accepted by the House of Commons as the basis for taking a decision on a proposal that affects the entire future of the United Kingdom seems totally absurd. The Lord President has led the House sadly astray and has brought about the degradation of Parliament by making this concession. Of course, he has been driven from pillar to post in his search for a majority for his long-sought guillotine. However, we ought to have the courage to make up our own minds.
If we have a referendum—as I say, I think that it is wrong—let us make it a United Kingdom referendum and let everyone in this country have the chance to express his views, particularly those who are proud of their Scottish or Welsh descent, in so far as they have that.
I have English, Irish and Welsh blood in my veins. My wife is of Scottish descent. I have sat in Governments in which Scotsmen were practically a majority of the members. Once in Fiji I was asked whether I had Scottish blood. I said that I did not think so. The big Fijian chief who was talking to me said that he had Scottish blood. I said "How come?", and he said "My grandfather ate two Scottish missionaries."


We cannot all claim that degree of consanguinity. However, we have the right to stress the importance of the British dimension.
After all, the Act of Union was a contract drawn up between Edinburgh and London. This contract cannot be broken, in my judgment, except by agreement between Edinburgh and London. It could be broken by decision of the House of Commons. What I think none of us can admit is that is could be broken by a decision of the House of Commons supported, if it were to be supported, by a referendum in Scotland and Wales, without a similar referendum— consultative or mandatory; although we are now discussing consultative referendums— being taken of the people of England, who are parties to the contract as well.
Since the Act of Union, the population of this country has grown from about 5 million to about 55 million. It has grown as a result of an enormous movement of population. Scots and Welsh have come to England. Englishmen have gone to Scotland. There has been an immense degree of intermarriage, and a very important Irish element has come too.
The British dimension is the point to which I return, because, after all, it is not English, Scottish, Welsh or Irish alone who have been responsible for Britain's achievement, an achievement that has blossomed to its greatest heights since the Act of Union. The creation of the United States of America, Canada, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand has been the work of the British collectively, not of any one element of them.
In my judgment it is a blasphemy to try to cut up the living organism of the British nation. In each one of us such a mixture of blood flows in our veins. The Government are trying to cut up the nation on artificial geographical boundaries, not for the better government of the country but to appease minority nationalist movements, and that with only one purpose— to maintain their own ephemeral majority in Westminster at present.

Mr. Dalyell: I was only reflecting that the Committee can be just a little thankful that when the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) men-

tioned that a Fijian had eaten two Scottish fishermen—

Hon. Members: Missionaries.

The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon): Common Market fishermen?

Mr. John Smith: Meat, not fish.

Mr. Dalyell: I was about to remark that it was a matter of some relief that the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) was not present in the Committee. Ribaldry is a formidable weapon. However, I was about to register a disagreement of a rather profound nature with the right hon. Member for Pavilion on one issue. Some of us should make it clear that whatever differences we may have with the Government Front Bench we are basically united with my right hon. and hon. Friends in supposing that anyone who is on the electoral roll, be he the latest arrived resident in Scotland from Bangladesh, Pakistan or anywhere else, should be entitled to vote. Surely that cannot be a matter of dispute. I think that on reflection the right hon. Gentleman will agree to that.

Mr. Amery: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not want to misrepresent me. I am not saying that such people should not be entitled to vote. I was trying to say that it seems curious and inappropriate that they should have a voice in deciding the future of Scotland when people of Scottish descent living south of the border are not to have one. I was making an argument in support of a United Kingdom referendum. I was not saying that those to whom the hon. Gentleman has referred should be excluded but that all of us in the United Kingdom should be included.

Mr. Dalyell: In a sense that reveals the dangers that we are getting into when we become involved in these ethnic arguments. Indeed, that is one of the very deepest reservations that I have about the whole subject of devolution.
The hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) made a revealing intervention when he invited the right hon. Member for Pavilion to the rugby match at Cardiff Arms Park on 5th March. If we are to continue to confuse the sort of fervour that we all feel either at Hampden or Murrayfield, according to the shape of


the ball that we follow, with political decision-making, it seems that we shall be in terrible trouble.
I have no doubt that much of the background reason that we are discussing the Bill is that the sort of fervour and the sort of reasoning that is entirely extraneous to politics but which is aroused at Hampden or Murrayfield is being applied to political matters.
It cannot be repeated too often that the interruption that the hon. Gentleman made reveals that the problem for Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National Party in respect of electoral success cannot be solved by having 150 Assemblymen in Edinburgh or 80 in Cardiff. A totally different set of reasons apply. One of which is to disentangle sporting patriotism from politics.
Having registered a disagreement with the right hon. Member for Pavilion, I register an agreement. In many of the amendments that have been moved the issue is the dismemberment of the nation. The issue is the mismantling of the United Kingdom and the end of Britain as we have known it. Therefore, there is prima facie an overwhelming argument that all citizens of the United Kingdom should be involved.
Having said that, and before my hon. Friend the Minister of State anticipates me, I realise that it is almost impossible to disentangle those who can claim to have a particular connection with Scotland. The process would never end. It would be a rolling programme. New people would come on the roll and others would pass away. It would be an impossible task. What we must discuss is whether all people in the United Kingdom should take part, not only those who in some way can claim a Scottish connection, be it near or far.

5.45 p.m.

I must ask my right hon. Friend about a factual matter that should be established. I shall not blame the Government Front Bench if it has not made the calculations but I wish to ask about costs.

First, what is the cost of a one-question mandatory referendum in Scotland? Secondly, is there any difference in cost between a one-question referendum and a two-question referendum? I suspect that the difference is marginal but it

is a question worth asking. I am quite willing to be told that there is no difference.

Thirdly, if there is to be a referendum arising out of new clauses upon which I shall not trespass now, some of us would like to ask many other questions. For example, at a moment when the Prime Minister is urging, rightly, that priority should be given to manufacturing and productive industry, some of us would like to ask whether as a priority we really need an expensive shake-up in our form of government.

Supposing that the referendum is to be consultative and not mandatory, how much more costly is it to insert 10 questions or even 15? If we are to have a consultative referendum, there are many things that some of us would like to ask rather than a "Yes" or "No" question. If there is to be consultation, it should be in some depth.

Part of the trouble with this entire argument is that it has hitherto been conducted too much in terms of slogans and slick headlines. At any rate, that was the position before it came to the House of Commons. In adopting that slick approach we have not dealt with the realities. Now, as a result of debate, the same issues are dawning in the country.

I take some issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes), who temporarily has left the Chamber. My hon. Friend made the assertion that the whole of the Labour movement in Scotland is behind the proposal for Assemblies. First, that was never true. Secondly, as the weeks go by it is becoming less and less true.

I strongly repudiate the suggestion that there has been any indication of filibustering during the nine days that the House of Commons has been considering this matter. I accept that there have been long speeches. There have been two or three long speeches but they may reflect more on the loquacity of those who made them rather than any attempt to hold up the House of Commons. Filibustering is engaged in with the intention to hold up the House of Commons for a particular reason. There are some of us who have made long speeches—I may be long-winded from time to time—but those speeches have not been made with an intent to filibuster. I hope that that will be accepted. The rumour has been put


around that the House of Commons is filibustering this measure. That is not the fact.

I return to the change of opinion. The truth is that as people know more and more about what is going on they begin to change their minds. Surely that is natural. If we had been asked some months ago "Do you want more say in general terms in your own affairs?", most of us would have answered "Yes". If that question had been asked in Huntingdonshire, the answer might have been "Yes". The same comment could be made about Aylesbury, or even Wrexham. But if the question became "Do you want more say in your own affairs?" in the full knowledge that that could lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom, in the full knowledge that we should have to dip into our own pockets and to pay a good deal of money for it, there may well be a very different answer.

The fact of life is that opinion has begun to change right across the political spectrum. That has happened as the issue has reached the top of the in-tray and as people have had to apply their minds precisely to what the House of Commons is now discussing. The litmus paper has begun to change colour.

I make no apology for saying in the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Small), who is one of the sponsored AUEW Members, that a resolution has been passed unanimously by the Edinburgh Divisional Committee of the AUEW, incorporating the Edinburgh, the Borders, Fife, Dundee and Falkirk area, which states:
That this union, recognising the great dangers to working class unity inherent in the proposals to create Scottish and Welsh Assemblies, instructs the Executive Council to urge the Government to withdraw the devolution Bill currently before Parliament.

I have a vague suspicion that when the national executive of the AUEW meets in May there will be a change of mind. It will have before it that resolution from the second biggest Edinburgh division of the AUEW, reinforced by the views of AUEW members on Tyneside as a result of the Tyne and Wear County Council meeting. In addition, it is clear, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) knows

from the preparations for the meeting on 4th May, that many AUEW members on Merseyside share the doubts that he so eloquently voiced. I repeat that when the AUEW meets in May it may change its policy, and if that happens other unions might follow suit.

The Chairman: Order. I am sorry, but I must interrupt the hon. Member. He is straying rather wide of the general question. I have been fairly indulgent both with him and with previous speakers. We are dealing with an amendment about a referendum in all parts of the United Kingdom. I think that the hon. Member was referring to the Bill as a whole, and I must ask him to come back to the amendment.

Mr. Dalyell: I have many shortcomings, Mr. Murton, but I am instantly obedient to the Chair.
Believing, as I do, that primary sources are the most telling, I propose to read some of the comments made in letters to me. I shall quote from only three letters out of more than 50 that I have received spontaneously—without any prompting—on this topic. The first letter is from Hertfordshire, and the writer says:
Dear Mr. Dalyell,
I wonder if Scots living south of the border will be considered if there is to be a referendum —which there should be—on devolution.
Although I am living in Hertfordshire I hope to retire up to Skye where I have a croft house, so I am naturally concerned myself and feel very strongly that it should not all be rushed through without proper thought.
The next letter comes from Isleworth, and the writer says:
My father was born in Scotland—my mother although born in England also spent a lot of her childhood in Scotland—and I, as a second generation Scot—and proud of my northern blood"—
she says—

Mr. Timothy Raison: The interesting thing about the writer of the letter is that she is eligible to vote in the referendum because she own a croft in Scotland. That will be the great triumph of the wicked absentee landlords about whom we used to hear so much.

Mr. Dalyell: She hopes to own a croft in Skye. She does not yet do so.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: This Bill will be an incentive.

Mr. Dalyell: I note the appearance on the Front Bench of my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Mabon). I must beware, because he is a man of instant wit.
The writer of the third letter says:
My family … has been Scottish for generations and I understand that because I now live in England, I will have no vote on the Scottish devolution issue, whereas thousands without any Scottish background or historical interest will vote purely on the grounds of their currently living in Scotland.
One could go on and on. If, in an interruption, I appeared to be snide about the Secretary of State for Scotland, for living in England, I did not mean to be.
There are many people who have every right to take part in this kind of referendum but who, because of their work, for understandable reasons, will be unable to do so. This will give rise to a sense of injustice that could be pent up and become dangerous. Although the counting may be done separately, serious consideration should be given to holding a referendum throughout the United Kingdom.

Mr. David Crouch: I have listened, as I have so often, to another speech from the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). He has argued the case cogently, strongly, with a great deal of sincerity, and with a lot of evidence to support his argument that, as was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner), it is unjust, unfair and wrong that if referendums are to be held, they should be held only in those parts of the United Kingdom—Scotland and Wales—where the result of the decision of Parliament and the referendums will have the greatest effect.
I accept the argument that the rest of the United Kingdom—England and Northern Ireland—is very much affected by what is intended by the Bill, but, as the House knows, we voted last night to have a referendum. We passed a new clause to have a consultative referendum. The House did not accept my advice. I opposed the idea, both with my observations and by my vote, and the more I listened this afternoon to the arguments put forward sincerely and well by all those who have spoken so far on why we should widen the franchise for these referendums, the more I became convinced that they were wrong.
If we are to have referendums, we can have them only in the way proposed in the Bill. I am against a referendum. The more I hear about the use of referendums in connection with the Bill, the more I realise the complexity and difficulty of the problem.
I hear the argument advanced that Scots and Welsh people who will be temporarily absent from Scotland and Wales will write to Members of Parliament and protest that they will be denied a vote affecting their country, or their part of the United Kingdom if it is better to put it that way, and what might happen to that part of the United Kingdom. I can understand that protest, but where does one draw the line between those who are absent from Scotland and Wales and living in another part of the United Kingdom for a short period and those who have removed altogether and have become resident in England or Northern Ireland and have little or no intention of ever taking a croft in the Outer Isles or anywhere in Scotland or Wales? Why should someone who has emigrated from Glasgow to London and has no intention of moving from Watford or Hendon have a special say in what takes place in Glasgow and what should happen in Scotland?
My hon. Friend is not proposing to extend the franchise in that way. He has proposed something much wider, and I shall come to that in a moment.
If one considers the possibility of extending the franchise to all those Scots and Welshmen who have left Scotland or Wales, either temporarily or for ever, I contend that no electoral officer will be able to determine how that can be done.
We have to be practical. The hon. Member for West Lothian said that nobody had been filibustering. I agree with him, but the more one considers the Bill in all its complexity and, I say, in some way in its idiosyncracies, the more one realises that it presents so many problems that in the end it is like an engineering operation: the design has to be frozen and the structure has to be built.
We could go on talking not for weeks but for years. This could be the greatest "chat-in" that Parliament has ever known. I have listened to nearly nine days of debate. I have, of course, been


absent sometimes, because we all have other things to do.

Mr. John Stokes: The debate has been of a high standard.

Mr. Crouch: I agree. It has probably not been Parliament at its best, but it has been Parliament showing its proper concern.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: It was at its best when I spoke.

Mr. Crouch: I did not quite hear what the hon. Gentleman said, but I think he was confessing that he was not at his best. He was deliberately trying to throw me, but I shall deliberately not be thrown.
The more we consider the complexity of how we might improve this device of having referendums and how we might widen the franchise, the more we run into trouble.

6.0 p.m.

I believe that there is only one solution if we are to have the referendums—that is to place the responsibility on those who are on the electoral register at the time it is decided to hold the referendums in Scotland and Wales. I have already tried to persuade the Committee that it would be ridiculous to extend the voting to Scots or Welsh living temporarily, either for short or long periods, outside Scotland or Wales in other parts of the United Kingdom, perhaps even outside the United Kingdom altogether, since all the pragmatic difficulties are too difficult to contemplate.

Mr. Peter Rees: Since my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) represents a constituency near mine, he will know that the local St. Andrew's Society and the Welsh Society meet regularly, and I see no practical difficulty in their producing registers of their members so that they could take part in the voting.

The First Deputy Chairman (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. I thought that the hon. and learned Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees) was chastising the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch).

Mr. Rees: I am asking his views, Sir Myer.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman turned his back completely on the Chair. He addressed the hon. Member for Canterbury without any regard for the Chair. That is why I said that it looked as if he was chastising the hon. Member for Canterbury.

Mr. Crouch: If my hon. and learned Friend was chastising me, Sir Myer, I shall seek an interview with him, because I am a constituent of his.
He has suggested that it might be possible to allow such votes, but I do not think it would be practicable, and certainly I do not think that, when examined by the Home Office and the electoral returning officers, it would be found to be practical and fair to consider that all those who had a claim to some blood connection with Scotland or Wales could properly and fairly be deemed to be voters in this very important matter.

Mr. Onslow: There is a subsequent amendment touching on this point, and I look forward to hearing my hon. Friend then about the exact difficulties he foresees. But surely it is up to any citizen who wishes to vote to be assisted and not opposed by the Home Office. I am sorry that my hon. Friend appears to think that because there would be difficulties people should not be allowed to vote.

Mr. Crouch: I will not be drawn into a future debate now, but I have already expressed my views on the subject. When it is argued that the franchise should be extended to the whole of the United Kingdom, I ask how that will solve the problem of whether Scotland and Wales are to get what it appears they want—a form of devolution and a form of home rule. That is what we are considering. That is why the Government have produced the Bill.

Mr. Fred Evans: I should not like the hon. Gentleman to be on record as giving a mistaken impression. He said that this is what the Scottish and Welsh people want, but that is not so. Many of us are convinced that it is the last thing that the Welsh people in particular want. But it is what the Government want and are determined to foist on the Welsh people.

Mr. Crouch: I think that the hon. Gentleman misheard me. I thought that I said that the Scots and the Welsh appeared to want devolution and that that was why the Government had brought forward the Bill. I think that it would be wrong to extend the decision to the whole of the United Kingdom, but I do not see why it should be wrong to ask only those in Scotland and Wales to decide the matter. The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Evans) knows Wales better than any English Members do. A referendum is to be held there, and the Welsh people can surely speak for themselves and say whether they want such a measure. I believe that it is right that the referendums should be confined to the Welsh and Scots to decide for themselves.

Mr. Victor Goodhew (St. Albans): Since these are to be consultative referendums, as English and Northern Ireland Members will be required to vote on the matter at the end of the day, why should their constituents not have a say? Why should not the people of St. Albans have the same right as I have to have a say in this matter?

Mr. Crouch: My hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew) has listened to my argument—

QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Sir Myer. I apologise both to you and the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch), but I have a prima facie breach of privilege to report which, I am told, I must raise at the earliest convenient opportunity. The opportunity is at this moment.
A group of parliamentarians were invited to go to the Chrysler Corporation, and they accepted. The Chrysler Corporation arranged to convey them at a quarter to six this evening in a coach. A number of us have been waiting downstairs—[Laughter.] My Front Bench should not laugh. There is a junior Minister who is laughing. I am more concerned with the privileges of Members of Parliament than with junior Ministers. We waited from a quarter to six to six o'clock. The group included Members from both sides of the House.

Lo and behold—[Laughter]—this is no laughing matter; it is serious—we were told that the Whips' Office, without consulting us, had cancelled all the arrangements. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but I am interested in the rights of Members of Parliament.
You, Sir Myer, and I know that no one is entitled to prevent Members of Parliament from doing their duty, and if hon. Members are going on a commission such as this, no Whips have the right to cancel the arrangement without notifying or consulting any of the hon. Members concerned. I claim that this is a breach of parliamentary privilege.
Hon. Members can laugh as much as they like, but I am not having Government Whips or Ministers telling me what I can do and what I cannot do. Therefore, I have raised this as a prima facie breach of privilege, and I ask you to have an investigation made into the matter to see who cancelled the arrangement and by what right in order to try to prevent me from carrying out my duties, together with other hon. Members from all parties. If hon. Members want to laugh and jeer they may do so, but this is a serious matter.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. We have enough trouble with the Scotland and Wales Bill in Committee.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) has raised a question of a breach of privilege. I have listened carefully to him and what I have to consider, as Chairman of the Committee at this stage, is whether what he has raised affects the working of the Committee. I am sure that he will agree that it does not affect the working of the Committee. He has observed the Standing Order in giving notice as soon as possible of his submission, and therefore it is recorded that he has done so and he will be able to pursue the matter tomorrow with Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Lewis: Further to that point of order, Sir Myer. I am afraid that it is not a question of interfering with the Committee but of the working of Parliament and the rights of hon. Members. This Committee is only one small facet of Parliament. I have raised the matter now, the first opportunity, because it is


in the rights of Members of Parliament that I am interested.

SCOTLAND AND WALES BILL

The First Deputy Chairman: I call the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) to resume his speech.

Mr. Crouch: Thank you, Sir Myer. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew) had addressed a pertinent question to me—whether I would confine voting in the referendums to those resident in Scotland and Wales. He made the point that there were people in constituencies throughout the rest of the United Kingdom who felt that they, too, should be consulted about a matter which would affect them. I accept that that is an argument, but I believe that to consult the whole of the United Kingdom would not produce the answer we are trying to get. The answer that I believe we are to trying to get—

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: No.

Mr. Crouch: The right hon. Gentleman is saying what?

Mr. Powell: I was hoping that the hon. Gentleman wanted the answer "No".

Mr. Crouch: I am trying to get a word in. The question I want answered is whether the people of Scotland and Wales want the measure of devolution which is proposed by the Government, namely a form of home rule and a directly-elected Assembly. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That may be true, but many English Members and many English people will give the thumbs-down to it. Maybe the great majority of members of the Government will give it the thumbs-down because they feel that it would disadvantage the United Kingdom and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) said, it would produce a disaster which would dismember the United Kingdom.
I do not hold to that view. As I said last night, I could no longer support the Bill because I felt that it had become a shambles. I do not hold the view that a measure of real home rule for Scotland

and Wales is a disaster for the United Kingdom. I do hold the view that it is a progressive move towards a wider democratic devolution which is what we should be aiming for. We should not be afraid of it. We should not be afraid of such moves. It seems that the country has become so entrenched in its history and heritage that it is afraid to look ahead and do some of the things that it was not afraid to do in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.

Mrs. Jill Knight: Will my hon. Friend comment on two points? First, how would acceptance of the amendment invalidate getting a clear answer from Scotland and Wales? Second, surely it is not correct to accept a referendum in such a form as to get the answer that we want.

Mr. Crouch: My hon. Friend is quite correctly stating a point of view which is held strongly and sincerely. All the views that have been expressed in the debate have been expressed sincerely and with a certain amount of passion. As the Committee knows, I am not an exception. What I am saying is that I believe we should be moving towards some form of wider democratic solution of our system of government in this country and that there is nothing wrong in what is proposed. But I do not like the method. The Bill has become a hotch-potch of old and new and right and wrong. I should like to see the parties in the House of Commons getting together and proposing an all-party solution and removing the political elements which have crept into the Bill.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I have not followed my hon. Friend's argument about why the referendum should not be extended to the whole of the United Kingdom. Many Welsh and Scots people living and working outside Wales and Scotland will be returning to Wales and Scotland, yet those people will have no say in the future destiny of their particular parts of the United Kingdom. Is that fair?

Mr. Crouch: My hon. Friend must have missed the earlier part of my speech. I tried to cover that point, and it would be wrong to delay the Committee by going over it again.


This is a matter which should properly be decided by those who are now resident in those parts of the United Kingdom. To go wider could produce an answer which would be unjust and unfair to them. I am taking account of the fact that the rest of the United Kingdom—the English and the Northern Irish people—are affected. But I believe that the effect on England by the measures for devolution which we are proposing can be overstated.
It may be thought that this Parliament no longer has any power to redress the balance between what is achieved in Scotland and Wales after devolution and what might be achieved for example, in North-West and North-East England. I am talking about economic assistance and aid. It is quite wrong to assume that we in the House, and the Government here at Westminster, no longer have the power to produce this for the rest of England. That has been overstated. I leave my argument at that.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Sillars: I always find it strange to hear a politician argue that one should extract politics from a particular issue. I do not really draw any distinction, because at the end of the day the political system has to function on a party basis.
I shall not enter into the argument that we had at length yesterday about whether there should be a referendum. I am opposed to referendums in principle and I voted against a referendum last night. The number of issues raised this evening illustrate the sad fact that we have engaged in a negation of responsibility and are sinking further and further into a constitutional and political quagmire.
It can be argued that it is almost impossible to set a fair referendum whether it is on an industrial issue or on a constitutional issue. In terms of the Common Market referendum, it is clear that the Conservative Government of 1970–74 found that when they came to deal with the national executive of the NUR, which set a question in its own industrial referendum, it almost guaranteed the 61 majority vote in favour of the executive.
However, we now have to argue within the bounds of the decision made by the House last night. The hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) appeared to pay

no regard whatever to the tact that in a country with an unwritten constitution it is perfectly permissible and, indeed, sensible to take the political process into account when one is talking about constitutional change.
There are those who have argued that there should not be a referendum covering the whole of the United Kingdom on a matter affecting the nations of Scotland and Wales. Here I immediately differ from the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery), who believes that there are no such things as a Scottish nation, a Welsh nation and an English nation. I believe that all three exist.
In pursuing his argument, the hon. Member for Reigate portrayed an ignorance of how the Union of the United Kingdom operates in political reality. That political reality was recognised in Ulster. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion is not present, because he argued that there is no such thing as small nations, or component nations, inside the British nation. Therefore, if we are to accept the logic of the right hon. Gentleman's argument, we would have to accept that there is no such thing as the Ulster nation. Yet he was prepared to allow a component part of the United Kingdom to determine whether it separated itself from the rest of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Powell: The hon. Gentleman is on an important point. As he says, it is a question of whether what we are dealing with are nations. In the case of Northern Ireland, however, the referendum was properly put to the Northern Ireland electorate as to whether they wished to be separated from the rest of the United Kingdom. That, by its nature, can only be put to and decided by people whose withdrawal is under question. But as regards the form of government in Northern Ireland, my hon. Friends and I—and the overwhelming majority of people in Ulster—have always been not merely content but insistent that it is in this House of Commons, since it is an integral part of the United Kingdom, that the government of Northern Ireland should be determined.

Mr. Sillars: I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it should be determined in this House of Commons. But the right hon. Member for Brighton,


Pavilion was arguing in the context of a referendum. I do not think that what the right hon. Gentleman has just said contradicts my point of view. If we were faced with a poll about the restoration of Stormont, the right hon. Gentleman would agree that this was a matter for the Ulster electorate principally rather than for the United Kingdom electorate as a whole.

Mr. Powell: I should argue that it would be a matter in the first place for this House of Commons as a whole and for the whole of the electorate of the United Kingdom as represented in the House. I do not see how it can be argued that the form of government in Scotland should be decided by the majority of English Members in the House of Commons but not decided by those whom the majority of English Members in the House represent.

Mr. Sillars: The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) has a logical sequence to his argument. I accept that that is his view, but it was not the view put forward by the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion, who argued, on the one hand, no nationality and, on the other hand, that Ulster was a special case. My point was that the whole exercise in relation to Ulster was in the light of the political reality in that part of the United Kingdom. The political reality determined the nature of the Government's response at that time.
We should attend to the political reality rather than to the nice constitutional arguments between, say, Members from Kent and those from Inverness. The political reality is that it is not beneath the Conservative Party on occasion to stimulate Scottish national feeling when it suits its electoral purposes. The Conservative Party was the first of the United Kingdom parties ever to publish a separate election manifesto specifically for Scotland. It did that in 1970. In fact, it boasted about doing it in 1970. The Conservatives were hell-bent on getting as many Scottish votes as they could garner. After the declaration of Perth in 1968, it was not a bad thing to make obeisance to what was regarded as the special Scottish dimension in the British body politic. The Conservatives tested

Scottish opinion separately in June 1970 and were separately rejected.
When the Conservative Government came in, one of their first acts was to introduce fee-paying in Scottish local authority schools. They could not claim to have had a mandate for that proposal. The people covered by the English Conservative Party manifesto were not asked that question. It was posed only in the separate Scottish manifesto which the Scots rejected. Nevertheless, we did not have any English Back Benchers on Second Reading of that measure saying that that was a disgraceful undemocratic act on the part of their Government or demanding that that legislation should be put aside and planted in the next all-British Conservative Party election manifesto to see whether reasonable English Conservative voters wanted fee-paying in Scottish local authority schools.

Mr. Peter Rees: Does the logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument lead to the position that, if on a count of heads by regions in this Chamber it should be found that English Members, or those who must be assumed to have voted for them, did not accept a specific proposal in the Labour Party's manifesto, it should not be introduced into England by the Government which he used to support but perhaps no longer does?

Mr. Sillars: If the Labour Party published a Kent election manifesto distinctly different from the manifesto covering the rest of England, the Labour Government would not be entitled to impose upon Kent a decision which the Kent people had said they did not want.
The point is that the Conservative Party posed for the people north of the border a separate manifesto outlining the terms of reference for the democratic argument. I did not do that. It was the Conservative Party which did it, and the hon. and learned Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees) was happy with that political reality at that time. The Conservative Party recognised that there was a Scottish dimension in the British political system.
The political reality is that the Scots tend to debate matters essentially in the Scottish forum. If the argument is about housing, it tends to be about the number of houses built in Scotland rather than the United Kingdom tally as a whole.


As regards unemployment, there is concern about the United Kingdom position, but, because of the position of the Scottish TUC and the Scottish element in the CBI, much of the argument is about the Scottish situation. It is always the Scottish point of view that is argued in that political forum. That is so with the Conservative Party as much as with the Labour Party.
If at the end of the day a referendum is held in the whole of the United Kingdom in which people in Scotland rather than the Scottish people, because the electorate consists of the people in Scotland, vote massively "Yes" in favour of the Government's proposition, as they will without question—it may be about 56 to 32, which would be landslide terms—and if the people of England vote "No" by whatever the majority, those who argue in favour of the amendment must accept that the logic of their argument is that the answer is "No" to the Scottish Assembly that the people of Scotland have declared they want. If anyone wants to blow the Union to pieces, that is the best way to set about doing it.
The United Kingdom is a multinational State, and the quicker that is understood and realised the better for the continuation of the Union. The United Kingdom is made up of small nations. I do not propose to argue whether Ulster is a nation on its own, but certainly it does not qualify by my personal definition. Many of us agree that there is a Welsh nation, a Scottish nation and an English nation—two small nations and a very large dominant nation. The test for the large dominant nation, if is wishes to retain the Union, is to be magnanimous enough to make the concession demanded by the minority.
There is no point in having a referendum which demonstrates that one Scottish vote can never equal 10 English votes. If anyone wants to give the Scottish National Party the best propaganda weapon that it has ever had, it would be to roam Scotland saying that one Scottish vote can never equal 10 English votes.

Mr. Stokes: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that, because he fears that the English vote may be a massive "No", English voters should not be allowed to

give a view on the subject? If they gave a massive "No" and the Scots gave a massive "Yes", I think that English Members of Parliament and the English nation would agree to the separation of Scotland, unlike the union in America which did not agree to the confederate nations separating. Why should not English people be asked for their view on this fundamental matter? That is what the hon. Gentleman has not answered.

Mr. Sillars: I do not think that the Government are proposing separation. Whatever else they are proposing, they are not proposing separation. There can be arguments about the consequences of their action, but that is not what the Government are proposing. If the proposition is separation, it is a matter of self-determination for the Scots and the Welsh, and in my view the English have no say as such. If the English wanted separation and self-determination, that would be a matter for the English.
I think that a number of hon. Members should recognise the political reality of the consequences of some of the statements made and attitudes adopted in this Chamber during the debates on the Bill. A great deal of frustration and anxiety is building up in Scotland which could manifest itself if the slogan were that one Scottish vote could never equal 10 English votes.
I am not in favour of the referendum. It is just another expedient to help us towards the necessary guillotine at the end of the day. However, we are stuck with the referendum. Therefore, we should try to pursue a referendum which does the least damage to the affections between the peoples of the United Kingdom. If the amendment were passed, it would do most damage to the peoples of the United Kingdom.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Adley: The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) may or may not have been reading my notes. I suspect not, but I agree with a great deal of what he has said. If I may amplify his point, there are in round terms 33 million people who cast their votes in England at the October 1974 General Election. At the same time, just over 3½ million cast their votes in Scotland and fractionally over 2 million did so in Wales. What the hon. Member says is


true. If we are to have a referendum throughout the United Kingdom on this question, and the votes are to be cast, counted and balanced on the basis of the United Kingdom as a whole, it will not take much imagination to realise that a small turn-out in England of perhaps 20 per cent. could easily overcome a large turn-out—say 80 per cent.—in Scotland.
What question does my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) wish to put on the ballot paper in England? According to his amendment, English people will be asked whether they think that the Scotland and Wales Bill should be put into effect. But nobody as yet has thrown any bricks through my window demanding a say in the referendum. It is extremely unlikely, if these questions are posed in a referendum in England, that constituencies like mine, for example, will get more than a 20 per cent. turn-out. In that way, a small vote in England percentage wise could overcome a very large vote statistically in Scotland. My right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) inadvertently gave this away when, referring to the attitudes of people in England compared with those of people in Scotland and Wales, he said that the great majority of people in England took a different view. I suspect that the great majority of people in England take no view at all.

Mr. Peter Rees: Since my hon. Friend referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner), who is out of the Chamber, perhaps I may put this question on his behalf. Surely the Committee is entitled to take account of the vote. If there was a low turn-out in England, we could take account of that. Ultimately the decision rests with us in the House of Commons and we would have to take account of a number of factors, including the respective turnouts in England and Scotland.

Mr. Adley: I take my hon. Friend's point. Possibly he agrees with me that this is a bad Bill which is trying to do something that should be done but is attempting to do it in a bad way. None of us knows exactly what the Scottish and Welsh people want. We should try to find out, and the referendum machinery is the best way of ascertaining what the

people want. If, however, the franchise is increased to include the whole of the United Kingdom, it will become apparent to the people of Scotland and Wales that their views are in danger of being submerged numerically by those of the people of England. That will drive more and more people into the arms of the Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru.
The whole Bill is an exercise in shadow boxing. None of us really knows what the Scots and the Welsh people want. We all make assumptions of what we believe they want. As long as people in England continue to give the impression that we in England with our 50 million people can tell 5 million in Scotland and 2 million or 3 million in Wales—

Mr. Iain Sproat: I think that my hon. Friend is getting into deep water by talking about English people and Scottish people. We are all British. I stand as a British Member of Parliament, not as a Scotsman. Already English voters tell Scottish people what to do. During the last Conservative Administration the majority of Scottish people voted for certain Socialist policies, but because there was a Conservative majority throughout the United Kingdom the Scots had to lump it.

Mr. Adley: I respect my hon. Friend's view. As he is a Member representing a Scottish constituency, one must defer very strongly to his point of view.

Sir Bernard Braine: The argument could be carried further. One cannot think that all Scots live in Scotland and all English people live in England. There are more Scots living in England than in Scotland and there are certainly more Welsh living in England than in Wales. What voice do they have in the future of their country?

Mr. Adley: If my hon. Friend would add his name to my amendment and do me the courtesy of reading it, he will see that I have covered that point.

Sir Bernard Braine: I have read it, but I am unconvinced.

Mr. Adley: In the almost seven years that I have been a Member of the House of Commons, we have had to make a number of difficult decisions. One that


I regret most was being dragooned into the Lobby to vote for the creation of a monster called Strathclyde. It gives me no pain whatsoever to think that in future decisions of this sort will be taken by an elected Scottish Assembly rather than by this House of Commons.
We should try to defuse the atmosphere and look at the proposition. We are trying to bring about some form of devolved government through the various regions of the United Kingdom. We have made a start with Scotland and Wales, and, who knows, in future, despite opposition from the County Councils Association, we might discuss—as the Liberal Party would like—some form of devolution for England. I believe that the decision on the future of these Assemblies should be made by the Scottish and Welsh people. That is why I say in answering my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) that I have put down amendments which seek to give Scots-born and Welsh-born people living elsewhere in the United Kingdom an opportunity to vote in the referendum. I agree with my hon. Friend 100 per cent. I believe, however, that when we are dealing with this issue it inevitably raises the question of nationality irrespective of what my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) may say. We must find a way of broadening the franchise.

Sir Bernard Braine: I realise that my hon. Friend is trying to bring a little logic into a totally illogical situation. Where is the logic and common sense in giving a vote in the referendum to someone who is a Pakistani by birth but is living in Cardiff, or to an Englishman living in Glasgow, but denying it to Scots and Welsh people living in England? This is a monstrous measure and I urge my hon. Friend not to tinker with it because, the people of this country up with it will not put.

Mr. Adley: If my hon. Friend gets a transcript of the "Today" programme for one morning last week, he will see that I said that there was no reason why a Ugandan Asian from Kampala living in Glasgow should have the vote when a Welshman living in England does not get it. This is a perfectly legitimate point, and I hope that my hon. Friend will now agree with me. I agree that one

has to try to draw logical conclusions in an illogical situation.
If hon. Members will look at Amendment (ss)—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. It is correct that the hon. Member has tabled the amendment. I can give the Committee the information that the hon. Member is referring to page 1743 of the Paper, where Amendment (ss) appears, but I do not think that we are going to discuss that amendment at this stage. I have, however, given the information.

Mr. Adley: In that case I shall not go into the question of my amendments, Sir Myer, but I am sure that my Front Bench will be able to thumb through this copious document and find them.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) that it could and should be possible to find a way of enabling people to vote. Many countries are broadening their franchise, and if we believe in democracy we must find ways of doing that to take account of individual circumstances. I agree very much with the point raised by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire, and that is that the sort of colonial attitude which one hears put forward so often on these questions will only help the SNP to achieve its aims.
I close by reminding my right hon. and hon. Friends that in 1968 Lord Home was invited by the then Leader of the Conservative Party to look into the question of devolution. Along with many others before and since, he was not all that dogmatic in believing that he had found the answer to the question. But he believed that, if we were concerned for the future unity of the United Kingdom, we were more likely to retain that unity by providing some form of administrative devolution for the people of Scotland and Wales.

Mr. Dalyell: It is all very well to quote Lord Home, but the relevant point is "believed" and not "believes", because Lord Home is among many people who are changing their minds rapidly and are asking for the withdrawal of the Bill.

Mr. Adley: I thought I had made clear that I regard this as a completely bad Bill. It is a bad way of achieving something which my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) described


as a reasonable advancement in the democratic development of our country. I know that Lord Home believes this to be a bad Bill. I have done my best to keep abreast of his views on the subject. I close by setting out what I believe to be Lord Home's position. If one is trying to retain the unity of the United Kingdom, it is a toss-up whether one is more likely or less likely to achieve that by providing some form of devolution or by denying it. Lord Home's view is that we are more likely to retain it by providing some form of devolved government for Scotland and Wales, and on that basis we in the Conservative Party would be unwise totally to forget that we went into the last General Election with a commitment to an elected Assembly.

Mr. Tom Ellis: During our debates on the Bill a number of right hon. and hon. Members have said that sometimes, and perhaps often, we seem to be in some confusion. That is true. I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) cut his way through some of the confusion. One of the reasons why occasionally there is confusion is that we seem to assume that in Westminster parliamentary terms Scotsmen, Welshmen and Englishmen are equal. In simple arithmetical terms, however, they are not equal. My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) pointed out the dangers of the slogan of one Scottish vote always being overcome by the 10 English votes. There is that danger. It is, therefore, crucial to begin to appreciate the whole question of the minority issue, and part of the point of the Bill is to deal with that issue.

6.45 p.m.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) criticised the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) when he intervened in the speech of the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) challenging the right hon. Gentleman to repeat in Cardiff Arms Park the statement he had just made in the Committee that there was no such thing as a Welsh nation, a Scottish nation or even an English nation. My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian was critical of the intervention on the grounds that somehow it was introducing a kind of

racial element and that politics should not differentiate between Scotsmen, Welshmen and Englishmen in Britain. This is absolute nonsense. There are in Wales issues of considerable importance there, but which have no real importance in the House of Commons and serve only to create considerable boredom.

I will mention only one aspect, although I could refer to many. It is the issue of the Welsh language. That is a controversial issue in Wales. I do not think I do anybody in this Committee an injustice if I say that ordinarily it generates a certain amount of boredom. It is of no fascinating concern to the average English, Irish, or Scottish Member, but in Wales it is of great importance. Over a period of years, because of English dominance—and I do not mean that in any nasty way, because it is a simple arithmetical fact, perhaps because of the English hegemony—there has not been for any period of time sufficient attention to certain important issues which concern Welshmen who in Britain represent the minority, but who in Welsh Wales are the majority.

In Wales over the last 10 years hundreds of young Welshmen have served jail sentences for breaching the criminal law because of the language issue. They may or may not be misguided, but they have been sufficiently steamed up to make the issue one of some importance. Because of the continuing outcry it has seemed very often, in the arguments in the courts in Wales, between the bench and the dock, that there has been a monopoly of wisdom on justice from the dock and a monopoly of wisdom on the law from the bench. However, there have been gradual changes. Because of this arithmetical imbalance, however, a disservice has been rendered over a long period of time to an important group of people who live in Wales, who speak Welsh, and who, in their area, represent a majority.

I do not pay a great deal of attention to this question of minority and majority as such. I have always believed the people who say that they are only a minority are using a silly argument. After all, there are more fleas than men in the world, but one would hardly put fleas above men because of that. The whole argument about minorities falls to the ground on that kind of logic. The


minorities have their rights, and that is the issue that we are discussing on the Bill.

If Scotland and Wales were to receive a measure of devolution it would affect Scotland and Wales incomparably more than it would affect England. To that extent, therefore, it seems to me that people in Scotland and Wales are much more entitled to express a view as to whether Wales and Scotland should receive a measure of devolution.

Mr. Powell: Has the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis) not realised that in this Committee, as in this Kingdom, we are all minorities? This Committee is a representation of a totality of a large number of minorities. The hon. Member has mentioned only some of them.

Mr. Ellis: I take the right hon. Gentleman's point absolutely. We are a representation of a vast number of minorities. I go much further and say that it is precisely because of the change in the social structure in the United Kingdom in recent years that the old nineteenth century system, which was sufficiently rigid and hierarchical to submerge all the minority interests so that they were neglected, has been changed so that minority interests are increasingly having to be heard and be given representation. We therefore reach the stage of trying to change from the nineteenth century type of structure, which is quite outmoded and useless, to what I would like to regard as a genuine, democratic United Kingdom. This is the basic argument for a measure of devolution.
Like many others, I am not an advocate of referendums—I do not believe in them—but we are to have a referendum so we have to make the best of it. To make the best of it, because the question affects England far less than Scotland and Wales, clearly it should be confined to the people of Scotland and Wales. There is an enormous amount of argument about who exactly are Scotsmen and who exactly are Welshmen. There are whole liberaries written on the question of nationhood and the definition of nationhood. I do not think that anyone could give a precise definition, but to deny the existence of such a thing as an English nation, a Scottish nation or a Welsh nation is absurd, and to proclaim the

recent creation of the British nation, as one hon. Member did, is equally absurd.
I hope, therefore, that the Committee will reject the amendment out of hand.

Mr. Dalyell: In the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), for whom I feel myself to be a bit of a stand-in on this issue, may I put this to my hon. Friend, who has a distinguished record because, as we know, he achieved the release of a Breton prisoner through his work in the European Parliament? Could he not carry his argument a little further and say that his belief is far distant from the Government's Bill, and he believes in a Europe of the minority races, run centrally? This is what he has argued so eloquently in The New Europe, and it is totally different from the proposition before the Committee.

Mr. Ellis: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. I accept that there is a great deal wrong with the Bill. Many hon. Members who are intending to support the Bill say that they also see a great deal wrong with it. I believe that it was brought forward in the first instance for the wrong reasons. I do not believe that it has been thought through, and I sometimes question the conviction with which it is being pushed through. But it is the only Bill that we have, and, therefore, I am bound to accept it.
I should have liked to have seen a simple Bill on similar lines to the proposals for Wales—no more than that—and a commitment to developments in the long term, to federalism or whatever it might be, in a natural and gradual way. To have such a precisely defined Bill as this is nonsense.

Sir David Renton: I am sure that it would help the Committee to know whether the hon. Member agrees with his hon. Friend the Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes) that it would have been better if the proposals for Scotland and Wales had been put before the House separately.

Mr. Ellis: No. I do not think that it would have been better. I am not sure what this has to do with the amendment, when we are discussing whether the referendum should take place in England or whether it should be limited to Scotland and Wales. I think that Scotland and


Wales should have been combined in one Bill, and I am glad that they have been. My criticisms are not connected with the fact that they have been combined together in one Bill.
I am sorry that I have taken a little longer than I had intended. I hope that the amendment will be defeated.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) made a highly relevant point this evening when he said that the Government do not yet seem to have fully realised all the implications of changing to a consultative referendum. For instance, if the referendum is to be consultative it would be proper and helpful to ask the people several questions rather than only one. Similarly, I hope that the Government will have had some new thoughts on this Amendment by the time the Minister replies to the debate on it. The change to a consultative referendum opens the doors to the validity of the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner).
I confess that when I first saw the amendment, when we were talking of a mandatory referendum, I was impressed with it, but I had cold feet because of the question of the diplomatic problems which could arise in a mandatory binding referendum, in which there was a poor turn-out in England, if a majority of English voters outvoted the totality of votes for the Bill in Scotland or Wales. Since, however, the referendum is to be consultative, and since this amendment is therefore itself bound to be so amended—as the Chair announced this afternoon—it seems that it becomes irresistible. If a consultative referendum throughout the United Kingdom produced an apparently embarrassing result, with the English verdict different from the verdict in Scotland and Wales, I am confident that the House of Commons would be well capable of dealing with that result in a responsible and common-sense way.
Since it is this Bill which is to be subjected to a referendum, with so many features that the Government seem to have included deliberately to make it a United Kingdom issue—for we are discussing not some proposal for Scotland and Wales to be hived off in a loose or remote form of federation but a Bill

constructed on a United Kingdom basis—it would be peculiarly perverse if the Government persisted in taking a view that it had nothing to do with the people of England and Northern Ireland.
Several features of the Bill emphasise the importance of this measure to England and Northern Ireland, particularly the question of finance for Scotland. Since the Government have not provided for a separate basis of taxation, the Bill at once becomes a matter affecting the pockets of the people of England and Northern Ireland. I am not suggesting that those consulted in a referendum in England would be mean or ungenerous, but at least they would have a vote on something which affected their own money.
The question of representation in this House of Commons, a subject which has already been well debated this afternoon, is of the utmost consequence, and might eventually be of consequence to all English citizens if an issue arose in which the tangle of representation at Westminster itself became an important issue.
It is not only constitutional matters that will exercise a considerable number of English voters. Many people resident in England, for example, are afflicted by the same residual problems resulting from the Industrial Revolution which also transformed the industrial belt of Scotland. There are millions of these people who have suffered for generations, English, Scottish and Welsh alike—and Wales has suffered as much as any—and they feel that arguments on the totality of all these appalling industrial, housing and other problems can at present be brought to bear in this Chamber. But in many respects, if the Bill is passed, the problem will, unfortunately, be fragmented. This is a deep concern in my own area, which is among the oldest power-driven industrial areas in the world. They are able to impress Parliament by the totality of the United Kingdom problem. If the Bill is passed, however, the English constituencies will be left with only a fragment of the problem—an important fragment, but still only a part—and will, therefore, lose the impact that they would otherwise have in trying to persuade Westminster.

Mr. Dalyell: I recall that the hon. Member made a speech in which he referred to the "soggy" English. How long


will they take to wake up to what is happening?

Sir Bernard Braine: They are tumbling to it slowly.

Mr. Wainwright: If I have your tolerance, Sir Myer, it is my intention to refer to the soggy English eventually, before finally sitting down.
There are these problems which are not simply the province of the constitutionalists but which are the real bread and butter problems, like housing, which exercise a great many minds in England and in Northern Ireland in relation to the Bill.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: The hon. Gentle man referred to housing. If it were true that the representation of the housing problems of all parts of the United Kingdom in the House of Commons were effective, would we not expect a similar level of housing improvement performance throughout the whole of the United Kingdom? How does the hon. Gentleman explain that the housing position in Wales and in the north-west of England is substantially worse than in any other region or country of the United Kingdom?

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Wainwright: That is not for me to explain, especially as I am speaking from this Liberal Bench which has not had much responsibility for these matters in my lifetime. I am not saying that bringing the totality of these problems to bear in this Chamber has achieved anything like the best results. However, many of my constituents feel that by bringing the whole weight of the problems here they have been more satisfactorily debated, considered and tackled by Governments than if only the English part and the Northern Irish part of the problems had been left as a residue to be dealt with in the House. Short of a referendum on separation, there can be no excuse for taking the opinions of some of the people rather than of all the people.
As for the soggy English, I grant that the Government might get away with it if they were able to get on very quickly with the Bill. I do not think that they are the sort of people to accept the temptation, but they might be able to trap the soggy English into accepting this monster of a partial referendum for the time

being. But I have no doubt that, if they persist in that unwise course, eventually it will catch up with some future Government and that, on some important constitutional issue, English opinion will turn sour and English people will say "We were not consulted, and we should have
been".

Sir Bernard Braine: Will the hon. Gentleman pursue his argument about the soggy English? Is it not a fact that leaders in the regions in the north of England have already begun to ask who picks up the bill for this and are already speaking out, without any reference to party allegiances, because they realise just what this Bill will mean for their own people? What the North thinks today, the South will think tomorrow, and some of us will make it our business to see that it does.

Mr. Wainwright: I would never suggest that northern leaders were soggy. As a total Yorkshireman, with no other blood in my veins and with no missionaries having been consumed, I regret the slow political consciousness of Yorkshire people about matters other than their food and football. But this is only a matter of slowness. It is not a permanent fault. It is not fundamental. It is simply a slow reaction compared with the admirable volatility of the Welsh and the Scots. Therefore, I say to those in the Government that, if they cynically exploit the boredom or sogginess of the English and try to pull a fast one with this partial referendum involving only one in seven of the people in the United Kingdom, eventually a future British Government will come sorely to regret such a transparently wrong decision.

Mr. Norman Buchan: I shall take up one or two of the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) in a moment. First, however, I want to counsel him on his general line. Some of us in Scotland are trying to prevent the kind of international feeling that we see developing, and we are not helped in that by some of the speeches that we hear from the Opposition Benches and sometimes from a few Government supporters.
The proposals in the Bill are to give an already devolved Scottish Administration some other aspects of democratic control. It does not attempt to break


down the basic totality of the industrial life and resources of Britain. On the contrary, some of us are doing our best to preserve it, and sometimes it would be helpful to have speeches from Opposition Members—recognising that many of them fear the Bill—which were a little more careful.
I want to refer to some of the arguments which have been advanced about the right of Scots living in England and Wales to participate in the referendum. One argument which is put forward on their behalf is that we require this amendment providing for a referendum also to be held in the rest of the United Kingdom—and, since it is already to be held in Scotland and Wales, that means England—to enable them to vote on this question. That is an extraordinary proposition to advance. It is one thing to argue that Scots living in England should have this right. It is another thing to say that, because they are here, the whole of England should vote.
One of the letters read by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) referred not just to a Scots person living in England but to a second-generation Scots person living in England. With respect, it seems to me that that argument would have come much more succinctly from the mouths of the Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru, because it is part of a kind of "blood myth" argument.
The reason why we say that these referendums should be held in Scotland and in Wales is precisely that it is the people living there who will be affected by the forms of government that we establish there. They should be administered in terms of their health, education, law, social services, planning and economic planning by the forms of government established there. That is a democratic proposition. It is those governed by an Administration who should elect that Administration, and that Administration should be responsible to them.
Scots people who live in England, including my own son who lives and works in London, will fulfil neither of those two requirements. As long as they remain here, they will not be under the Administration set up in Scotland, and that Administration will not be responsible to them in. England. To argue otherwise is

like saying that Labour supporters from Colne Valley who now live elsewhere in England should, in the event of an election, be able to go back there and vote out the present Liberal Member.
That is the first element of nonsense in saying that the referendum should be extended to England because there are some Scots and Welsh living in England. But, more importantly, that argument itself is fundamentally unsound, instead of being a democratic argument. It is an argument against the disastrous intervention made earlier by the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) who, I notice, is busy nodding in agreement. He made the obnoxious remark that it was intolerable that a Scotsman who had left Scotland and come to live in England should not have a vote in the referendum but that a Ugandan who had gone to live in Scotland should get one. I do not find that intolerable at all. If a Ugandan or Pakistani, or even an Englishman—I treat them equally—has gone to live and work in Scotland, since he is to be administered by the form of government to be established there, he has a right to a say in its establishment.
I remind the Committee of what that good Englishman Colonel Rainborough said in the Putney debates:
… every man that is to live under a government ought first by his own consent to put himself tinder that government.

Sir Bernard Braine: The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) has a great reputation for fairness and objectivity. However, he is beginning to depart from it. He knows that my theme is not that Scotsmen and Welshmen alone in England should have a voice. My theme is that everyone in the kingdom concerned with the future of the kingdom should have a voice, and I hope to have an opportunity to develop that argument before too long.

Mr. Buchan: My argument dealt not merely with the proposition about Scots and Welsh living in England but with that about the people of England, on the democratic parliamentary basis. I took that argument on board in my usual fair and partial way. If we look at the proposals in this way, we have another example of what will come from them.
If the whole of the United Kingdom is to vote in the referendum, Scotland


will be voting on whether Wales should have a Welsh Assembly. The people of Scotland, very properly, will say that this is a matter for the Welsh to decide. The Welsh will be voting on whether Scotland should have an Assembly, and I am sure that they will say that that is a matter for the Scots. The only question bothering Scots about Wales is whether Phil Bennett will be picked.
The opposite argument becomes a political point. The political reality is that those hon. Members who say that the proposal is a means of preserving the unity of the United Kingdom will be seen by the Scots, no doubt incorrectly, to be saying "We shall give you the vote, but we shall make sure that the larger population of England will vote too, in order to negate your vote". That would be politically disastrous. Even if it did not happen, the suspicions would feed those forces to which hon. Members claim to be opposed.
If there is a danger of a for-and-against situation, of two contrary votes, what do we do? What do we do if hon. Members succeed in their argument and we fail to convince the English that we are not harming them but are bringing the Administration under more democratic control, so that there is a "No" vote to an Assembly for Scotland or Wales? The amendment proposes an Assembly not for England but for Scotland and for Wales. Do we agree with the people living in England—that is, with their "No" vote? If we do not, we deny them the right that we have apparently promised by holding a referendum, so our decision will be antagonistic to the people of England, too. If we agree, we say to others "You will not be allowed to choose this because of a vote elsewhere". It is an illogical nonsense and a political danger, and it should be dropped.
The fear has been expressed by many people, including the hon. Member for Colne Valley and the hon. Member for Essex, South-East, that there will be an immense economic advantage to Scotland and Wales. This can be dealt with not by a referendum but by the Bill. If we are discussing the amount of grants for all parts, we should try to lay down the necessary guidelines to ensure that there is not an excess grant for industry in South Wales compared to the perhaps

worse-off north-east of England. All United Kingdom Members will be participating and voting on the content of the Bill, and that is how fears can be allayed.
The other fear expressed has been of separation. The proper course of action is to submit the Bill to the will of the Scottish and Welsh people. They are facing not one problem but two—the Bill and the political situation. If the Bill is to be killed off in the House of Commons, or ground into the sands, the Scottish people will see this as a further example of the final ineptitude of a Westminster Government. That view may be unjustified. In their own interests and on the basis of their own argument, hon. Members should be in the forefront in getting the Bill through, supporting the necessary parliamentary measures to help it through, and stopping the illogical nonsense which we have heard from so many of them today.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Peter Rees: The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) has analysed the proposals in a way which I find unacceptable. He starts from the premise that a referendum will be about an Administration in Scotland or Wales and that those who are currently resident in Scotland or Wales must be regarded as permanently resident there. I think that both propositions are false. [interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West will allow me to develop my argument.
My analysis of the referendum is different. The proposals in the Bill go far wider than the form, content and complexion of an Administration in Scotland or Wales. It is equally fallacious to assume that those who may happen to be registered in Scotland or Wales at the date of the referendum are necessarily permanently resident there, or are representative of Scottish or Welsh sentiment, I would approach the referendum in a slightly different spirit.
Even if the Lord President had shown scrupulous concern for constitutional proprieties and the delicate regard for party balance which he showed in the dog-days of 1968, I would still approach the referendum proposals with the deepest mistrust. This has been almost a common theme in all the speeches today.


There has been a frigidity towards and a repugnance for these proposals.
The unworthy suspicion has been left with me, as with the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars), that these referendum proposals are nothing more than a squalid manoeuvre designed to attract a little support for a waning Bill and to pave the way for a guillotine. We shall see whether they achieve the support they are designed to secure, and we shall see next week or thereafter whether the Government have the nerve to introduce a timetable motion.
Whatever one may feel about the principle of a referendum, constitutionally or otherwise, the closer one comes to the details of these proposals the less attractive they seem. I fervently support Amendment (O). I cannot see how the Government can justify on any grounds the exclusion of the majority of voters from expressing their views on a matter which must affect them, their children and their grandchildren.
I would not be so bold as my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) to assert that there is no Scottish nation or no Welsh nation. At the end of the day, I suspect that the difference between my right hon. Friend and myself is not so much a question of blood—like him, I must confess myself to be a mongrel—but one of semantics.
How one defines a nation in this context may be a matter of delicate debate and dispute, but what I assert with considerable confidence is that if there is a Scottish nation it is certainly not confined to the area north of the border, and that if there is a Welsh nation it is not confined to the area west of Offa's Dyke. Anyone who has had the privilege of attending the functions of a Caledonian Society on St. Andrew's Day in Dover or Deal, or maybe in Calcutta, Brisbane or even Belfast or of attending a function of a Welsh Society on St. David's Day way outside the Principality will know my proposition to be true.
There has also been a reverse flow. It is one of the grotesque coincidences of politics that the two major members of the Government Front Bench who have lent their credit and support to the Bill have mixed backgrounds. One, the

Prime Minister, has, I dare say—but it is a matter of speculation—an ancestry which derives from County Cork. He owns broad acres in Sussex, and no doubt he will be entitled to vote in the referendum, if it is approved in its present form, in Cardiff. The Lord President is, I understand—although I have not questioned him on this—a man of Cornish descent and he now has the privilege to represent a seat in Monmouthshire. I regret, Sir Myer, that the Chair has not selected Amendment (b) in my name and the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Stradling Thomas) which provides for a separate referendum in the county of Monmouthshire.
All this demonstrates that we are a mongrel race in these islands. The diaspora of the Scots and Welsh has taken them very far from their original borders. It is only the Celtic separatists who sit on this Bench for the moment, but perhaps not for long, who have attempted to play on these slightly spurious emotions They have tried to introduce into our debates the tribal sentiments which may be exhilarating at Cardiff Arms Park or Murrayfield but which are inappropriate in our debates here at Westminster on great constitutional issues.
If I turn briefly to face the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) I hope that I shall not be accused of disrespect to the Chair or of chastising the hon. Gentleman, as I was accused not so long ago of chastising my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch). I wish to tell the hon. Gentleman that transcending these nations' history, however real the sentiments that animate those who claim to belong to them, there is a British nation that has undoubtedly, existed for more than 250 years, a British nation of which many people who may be of Welsh descent, like me and perhaps the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), none the less are proud to claim themselves members.
After all, the British nation has a historical existence that far exceeds that of, for example, the German nation or the Italian nation. We belong to a nation which has been on the whole, until recent years, a success. Its history has been marked by triumphs and achievements of which I at least am proud to boast, as I hope other hon. Members are.

Mr. Powell: Perhaps I may support the case of the hon. and learned Gentleman for the existence of a British nation by saying that those who sent my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) and me here, and who are the majority of the inhabitants of Northern Ireland, are Unionists not because they belong to the English nation but because they belong to the British nation, the nation of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Rees: It would be a travesty of the truth for me or anyone else, whatever his precise ancestry, to claim that the inhabitants of the ancient Province of Ulster are English. Of course they are not. They have never asserted it, and I would not assert it. They are component parts of the British nation—

Mr. Powell: Hear, hear.

Mr. Rees: —just as the Welsh, whether they are to be found in Aberystwyth or Deal, are part of the British nation; just as the Scots, whether they are to be found in Dundee or Westminster, are part of the British nation. Indeed, for the hon. Member for Dundee, East to pretend, as he sometimes affects, that he and his hon. Friends alone represent the Scottish nation is a travesty of the truth.

Sir Bernard Braine: Does my hon. and learned Friend also agree that what has bound together the constituent elements making up the kingdom is common achievement, shared experience and common sacrifice? When in two world wars we fought alongside one another we did not ask whether we were Welshmen, Scotsmen or Englishmen. We felt that we were British and that we were fighting for our country and in some cases laying down our lives for it.

Mr. Rees: I agree with my hon. Friend. I do not wish to be drawn too deeply into the question of what makes a nation. That great French patriot and statesman General Charles de Gaulle was very much of the view that what creates a nation is shared experience, shared history and shared sacrifice. It is our duty to speak for Britain and not only for the individual nations to which we may claim to belong, the individual areas from which we may hail, or the individual con-

stituencies which we may be privileged to represent.

Mr. Tom Ellis: While I am prepared to accept for the moment this concept of Britishness, does not the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that it should not subsume individual characteristics of Scottishness and Welshness?

Mr. Rees: How could I deny that proposition with my name, which the hon. Gentleman will no doubt recognise as one that comes from the Principality? I am proud to claim that ancestry. The enduring strength of this country and our political institutions is that we have in great measure recognised the individual idiosyncrasies of the various parts of the United Kingdom. I hope that we shall go on doing so. I shall come later to the damage that the Bill is likely to do to the enduring concept of British nationhood.
The touchstone, the basis on which we must judge the referendum, is how far the proposals in the Bill affect the British nation as a whole. One can approach this matter in various ways. I wish first to approach it in the very way that the Chairman of Ways and Means recently ruled. You will recall, Mrs. Butler, that on Wednesday 9th February he ruled that the main purpose of the Bill was
to create other authorities which will enjoy a concurrent competence"—[Official Report, 10th February 1977; Vol. 925, c. 1678.]
He must have meant, of course, a concurrent competence with that currently enjoyed by this Parliament. Therefore, on the very ruling of the Chair, the proposals in the Bill must affect the sovereignty, the functions and the rôle of Westminster. I give this to the right hon. Member for Down, South, although he and I voted in different ways on the question of the Common Market. Tested by the ruling of the Chair, these measures—on which, on the Government's proposal, only those currently resident in Scotland and Wales are to be invited to express their view—are likely to affect the United Kingdom as a whole.
Digging a little deeper into the proposals of this unattractive Bill, I believe that they go beyond that and that they will affect perhaps fatally the delicate balance of power, the web of political and administrative relationships between Cardiff, Westminster and Whitehall, between


Edinburgh and Westminster and Whitehall. More profoundly and significantly than that, the Bill is designed to give a separate political identity to two parts of the United Kingdom. I do not believe that anyone speaking in favour of the Bill could deny that proposition.
If that is true, the very concept of British nationhood must be at risk. If that is true, the British nation as a whole should be able to take part in the referendum, wherever the individuals who make up that nation happen to be living. I say at once, although this is not enshrined in the amendment, that I believe this to be a case that those living and working temporarily in the Persian Gulf, India, Australia or Africa should also be entitled to a vote, because the matter goes to the very political framework of the country which they left and to which they perhaps hope to return to settle and die. If there should be a photo finish, if there should be a majority of 51 per cent. on a 30 per cent. turn-out in Scotland or Wales, surely there are other factors that the Government must take into account.

7.30 p.m.

The Government's case for limiting the referendum to Scotland and Wales has been fatally undermined by the concession that the Lord President made a few days ago. If the referendum is not to be mandatory but consultative, the crude argument that can be deployed against the case that I have made today—that it would be wrong for the views of Scotland and Wales to be overridden by English votes—falls to the ground.

According to the concession made by the Leader of the House—and I should have preferred to see it in a new clause or an amendment before we attempted to debate these provisions and amendments—the referendum will be consultative and the ultimate decision will be taken by the House of Commons. Surely, when the House makes the ultimate decision, as the Leader of the House has promised, it will be entitled to know the views not only of those electors who return Scottish and Welsh Members to the House but of the whole of the United Kingdom and of all the electors who return Members to the House.

Mr. Buchan: The hon. and learned Gentleman is completely wrong. Con-

trary to what he says, the concession made by the Leader of the House lessens the argument for a referendum in England. If it were a mandatory referendum and if the views expressed in Scotland and Wales were to be carried out, there would be no problem—although perhaps a problem could arise with one country voting "Yes" and the other "No". But if the referendum were consultative and the larger population living outside Scotland and Wales were involved, that would enormously enhance the suspicions that may be created about the Government's intentions. The real facts of the situation are the opposite of what the hon. and learned Gentlemen has suggested.

Mr. Rees: If there are any suspicions about the measures that may or may not be introduced as a consequence of the referendum—and I infer from the hon. Members' intervention that suspicions will be held by his constituents, for example—the hon. Member will be able to point out that, if the vote is taken county by county or constituency by constituency, due weight can be given to particular views. The amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) and myself is purely designed to bring about a United Kingdom referendum. The question of how the count should be done can be discussed separately. Following the precedent of the Common Market referendum, the count should be carried out county by county. It may reassure the constituents of the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West, as it would be easy for us to determine how Renfrewshire voted on the issue.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Surely that is essential knowledge if the referendum is to be a consultative one. If Parliament is to make a binding decision, Parliament must be able to take every factor into account. If all the English counties are to be left out, how can it do that?

Mr. Rees: Of course, I agree.
Among the factors that we shall wish to weigh will be how the various regions, counties and nations of the United Kingdom express their view during the referendum. If the Government are sincere in their anxiety to consult the people affected by their proposal—and there will be some who will unkindly doubt the


Government's sincerity, which will be tested soon—and I hope that the Minister who speaks tonight will accept my analysis that this is not just a mere regional problem or a question of equipping Scotland and Wales with no more than an enlarged county council. It is something that will go to the root of our constitutional being. If the Government are sincere in their anxiety, then in honour and in logic they are bound to accept the amendment.

Mr. Paul Channon: I agree strongly with what was said by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees). The Committee faces this problem whenever a referendum is proposed. Nearly every hon. Member who has spoken has been opposed to a referendum because there difficulties are inevitably bound to arise when it is decided to proceed by way of referendum rather than by allowing Parliament to decide such great issues in the way that has traditionally and rightly been the way of dealing with all such great issues except one—and I shall come to that one in a moment.
A point that flows from that and makes our discussion more difficult is that we have not yet been told by the Government what will be the form of the referendum. We were told yesterday that it would be consultative and that there would be some further process once the referendum was over, but the Government have, so far, been unable to put down amendments to tell us what that process will be. If the Minister could tell us that—if not tonight then at an early stage in our discussions on the referendum—he would be doing the Committee a service. Will there be an Order in Council or further legislation? What further parliamentary process do the Government propose? My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) says that the Government do not know, and he may be right. If so, that is an example of the way the Bill slides from one difficulty to another and with none of the difficulties being properly thought out. My hon. Friend may well turn out to be right.
Since we are to have a referendum and since the Committee decided last night to give the new clause a Second Reading by a large majority, we must ask who will be affected by the measure and who

will be entitled to vote. I understand that some hon. Members, including some of my hon. Friends, argue that it is a matter for the Scots and the Welsh only. I disagree strongly. The Bill, if it passes into law, will have a fundamental effect on the whole government of the United Kingdom. It will have a fundamental effect upon the government of England and of Northern Ireland as well as that of Scotland and Wales.
Let us examine some of the issues that will inevitably arise as the years go by if the referendum takes place. We shall have to discuss the composition of the House of Commons and discuss how many Members should be sent from England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. That decision will be seriously affected by the powers given to the Assemblies and is strictly relevant to what is decided on the matter.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: Does my hon. Friend think that the English will be happy to have a Scottish or Welsh Prime Minister in the future?

Mr. Channon: That is indeed a thought. We may well be happy to do so—because we are a tolerant race—provided that the Prime Minister represents an English or Northern Irish constituency. It will be doubtful whether in future there will be many Scottish or Welsh Ministers because they will be put in a different position. I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. It will be the exception rather than the rule for that to be so as the years go by.
There will be other issues to be settled. If the composition of the House is to be unchanged, we shall have to discuss issues that have been talked about before—for example, by Mr. Gladstone with the Bill of 1893. If the Assemblies are set up we shall have to consider whether Scottish and Welsh Members should have different voting rights. That will have a profound effect on England. Would a Government of a particular party political persuasion, and with a bare overall majority, be entitled to remain in office with the support of Scottish Members who would have their own Assembly? It might be that the representation in the House of England and Northern Ireland would be of a different political persuasion.
These issues will have to be faced They will not go away. There are no ideal solutions. If the Bill passes into law there will be a continuing and long process over many years of changes in the government of the United Kingdom. The government of not only Scotland and Wales but of England and Northern Ireland will break down into its parts. If I am right in that contention—and I think that some hon. Members support me—then surely the English and the Northern Irish are as entitled to be consulted over the change as are the Scots and the Welsh. It is essential that the views of the people of England and Northern Ireland about the Bill should be obtained.
Some hon. Members have likened the Act of Union to a contract. That contract is being changed, and, whether we like the new one or not, both parties to it have a right to a say in what the future contract should be. The argument is all the more compelling because the referendum is no longer mandatory. The Committee cannot, therefore, escape from its responsibilities; nor should it.
It will be Parliament's responsibility to enact or fail to enact whatever parliamentary process the Government eventually bring forward on the conclusion of the referendum. If Parliament is to have that responsibility and we are to have that information given to us, why should we not have all the information? Why should we not have the views of the English, Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish people expressed on the basis of counties? I was against that in the Common Market referendum, and I was wrong. We benefited from knowing the division of opinion in various parts of the United Kingdom, and I believe that the same would be true in the devolution referendum.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: There is one point which has not yet been touched on. How could we shake out from the county reporting in England those people who are, in essence, of Scottish or Welsh breeding so that they can be added to the voting in Scotland and Wales to make up a total census of the people in those countries in favour or against the devolution Bill?

Mr. Channon: That problem is insoluble. Perhaps we can discuss on a later amendment whether it is a problem that should be solved, but I do not think that there is any solution. I imagine that there will be many people qualified to vote in at least two of the countries concerned, if not three or all four.
We are setting out on a long and difficult road of constitutional change which will have profound effects for this Parliament and the United Kingdom and for England and Ireland as much as for Scotland and Wales. I do not believe that the people of England and Northern Ireland can be denied the right to vote in the referendum.
The people of England and Northern Ireland may not have woken up to what is going on, but they are beginning to wake up jolly fast. The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) said that they were already beginning to wake up in his part of the world and we know that they are beginning to wake up in the North-East and in other parts of the country. Even the sleepy South-East will wake up one day and will not like what it sees. It is better that people should not wake up with a feeling of having been cheated, and that something they do not understand has been enacted.
It is a terrible pity that the Government have chosen the road of the referendum, but it is better that they should face from the start all the difficulties and problems and the possibility of England and Scotland reaching different views, rather than wait, and find that all these problems become far worse later.

Mr. W. Benyon: I agree with a great deal of what my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) has said. It is true that the people of the fair county of Buckinghamshire are not exactly demonstrating on the streets about the Bill, but they are learning fast and are beginning to realise what is going on. If it were not against the rules of the House of Commons, I should be tempted to send copies of today's Order Paper to all my constituents so that they could see amendments which are numbered with, for example, six Zs.

Mr. Cormack: It would not be against the rules for my hon. Friend to do that.

Mr. Benyon: It would certainly cost the country a great deal of money, although it would bring home the irrelevance of what we are discussing all these long days and nights.

7.45 p.m.

The amendment that we are discussing raises a matter of vital importance. I welcome the Government's rejection of the mandatory referendum. It would have been a constitutional disaster. I should rather that we had no referendum, but it is apparent from last night's vote that if the Bill goes through we shall have a referendum. As it is to be consultative, I must follow my hon. Friends who have spoken earlier and ask why the people of England should not have a vote. If it is to be consultative and if we are to take the final decision, why should we be denied information about how our constituents feel about the Bill? We shall know how the Scots and the Welsh feel. Why on earth should we be denied knowing how our own constituents feel?

I disagree with those who talk about the problem of expatriate Scots and Welsh people. It would be impossible to separate their votes and it is important to remember that if they vote in English constituencies, they will be taking part in the consultative process as British people.

When the Act of Union was entered into, it was a union of two independent and free parties. It is not a scrap of paper that can be torn up. It has been interwoven into the fabric of our society for more than 200 years. If the Government are saying that one party now desires home rule, the other party surely has the right to say how it feels about the proposals.

If I may be party political for a moment, I look forward to future hustings with great anticipation because, on top of all the other misdemeanours of the Government, it will be possible for me to appeal to the sense of injustice that my constituents will increasingly feel if they are not given the opportunity to make known their views on this matter.

That sense of injustice will arise from the fact that. Scots and Welsh Members will still come here and tell me and my constituents what must be done in England on various subjects which have been

devolved for Scotland and Wales. There will be a sense of injustice because my constituents will realise increasingly that the Scots and Welsh are grossly overrepresented in this House and there will be a sense of injustice because, strangely enough, many people are still proud to be British and regard themselves as part of one nation.

My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) said that a future Conservative Government will be under strong pressure to rectify the balance of representation of Scotland and Wales. The people who put their hands to this plough must realise where it will end up. If the Bill goes through my constituents and I will be pressing further. These arrangements belittle and demean the whole concept of Great Britain as a nation in fact. The result will be binding if the Scottish and Walsh nations vote by a very large majority.

Mr. Cormack: Not on me.

Mr. Benyon: My hon. Friend is entitled to say that but, speaking for myself, I should find it difficult to deny the results of a massive vote. But, if the result is evenly balanced, that is another matter and one would take into account the views of the rest of the country. I shall find it difficult to ignore a massive vote and that does not diminish the importance of knowing what everyone else is thinking.
There is a strong and rising feeling in my part of the country, and I suspect in other parts as well, that the Bill is really a pandering to the nationalist minorities and that it will not solve the great issues of bad housing, inflation, unemployment and the whole problem of national prosperity. It is only a national policy covering the whole country which will put those things right. Therefore, we in England and Ulster—and that is the whole point of the amendment—have the right to vote on a proposal which would emasculate those national policies, set one part of the country against the other and weaken our voice in the world.
When the consequences are fully appreciated there will be great bitterness and scorn in England and in Ulster because these arrangements have been forced on the majority of the country. I beg the Government to draw back while there is still time and to let the kingdom


as a whole have a voice on these proposals.

Mr. William Small: I shall make some comments on Amendment (o) which I regard as the alpha and omega of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) said that there has been no filibustering but as I look at the Order Paper, which the hon. Member for Buchingham (Mr. Benyon) wishes to send to his constituents, I find that it is parliamentary erotica. It is all in the mind and the Order Paper represents a searching for expression in the minds of hon. Members.
Aristides was the first man to write six books on erotica, which were translated into the Latin. They were a great sell. In Plato, in a discussion between Socrates and Ion, there was a discussion on the mind and what made poets, which was repeated to Hypocrites by Phidias, the sculptor of the gods. They believed that one must go elsewhere for inspiration. These amendments have a similarity—one has to go elsewhere than the Order Paper for inspiration. It is so confusing that I think that we should throw it away. There is the story of an old woman who went for medical treatment which, like a referendum, is an intrusion. She swallowed a snake, and that snake went into the Bill.

The Temporary Chairman (Mrs. Joyce Butler): I hope that the hon. Member will come down to the amendments under discussion.

Mr. Small: I am dealing with Amendment (o) about which I could give a litany in Latin. What is happening is that this snake has got into the minds of the people. It is time that the doctor gave the patient an emetic and got rid of the thing altogether.

Mr. Stokes: I relish the opportunity of speaking for the first time on this long Bill, having listened for many hours and many days to the voices of other Members. As many Members will know, I loathe the Bill and all that it stands for, but I have come to respect the speeches on the Bill. I respect the debates particularly because some of them have cut across party lines and because hon. Members have spoken exactly as they feel

I have never been bored and, except for one or two occasions, possibly because of Government Members, I have never heard any filibustering.
The more we discuss the Bill the more one must agree—and one can see it from the anxiety on the faces of Ministers—that we are getting into a quagmire. I have always opposed referendums, because they weaken Parliament and take away part of our responsibility. I do not believe that anyone felt until recently that referendums would become a common feature of British constitutional life. But the past was sold when it was decided by the then Labour Government to have a referendum on the Common Market. Now we have got on the referendum treadmill and we cannot get off it even if we want to. [Laughter.] Where will this process end?

Mr. Ridley: The laughter came because somebody suggested that it was lavender-coloured ballot paper.

Mr. Stokes: Throughout the course of the Bill I have wondered why the referendum should be confined to Scotland and Wales when the constitutional balance and future of the United Kingdom and of its peoples is at stake. Nothing that I have heard from the Benches opposite has caused me to change my view.
Apart from a brief intervention of mine, no one, for obvious reasons, has mentioned the American Civil War, fought over a century ago to preserve the union. Nobody suggests that anybody should fight anyone here. But are the English and Northern Irish people to say goodbye to Scotland and Wales if they wish to leave the United Kingdom? Are they not at least to be allowed to have a voice in this great matter?
As has been mentioned already, now that the referendum is to be consultative and not mandatory there is an even stronger reason for us all, particularly English Members, to know and sound the views of our own constituents. Why are the Government so opposed to that? It is because they fear that a referendum in England will result in an enormous vote against the Bill. That is the reason why they do not wish the English people to have a referendum.

8.0 p.m.

If Scotland and Wales really wish to become independent and so express that


view in a referendum, I very much doubt whether either English or Northern Irish people would wish to stop them. But let us suppose that the vote is much closer. Let us suppose that the vote is "No" in Wales and "Yes" in Scotland. I am so glad that at least we in the House of Commons will once again be able to exercise our general judgment on the whole subject and will take the referendum into account but will, in the end, vote according to our consciences.

I very much hope that there will be a second question on the referendum form—whether separation is really wanted. This, I believe, would bring people up with a jolt. The Government are playing with fire in starting these referendums and their cynicism in tinkering with the constitution for political ends may well in the end rebound to their disadvantage.

My hon. Friends the Members for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) and Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) seem to feel that at least their constituents, in the South-East and the South, do not care a rap about the Bill or about the profound constitutional changes that are envisaged. I am very surprised about that. I have not found any other Member on my side or elsewhere in England whose constituents are not becoming daily more aware and more concerned about the dangers of the Bill.

I certainly feel that I can speak for not only my constituency of Halesowen and Stourbridge but the great mass of the people of the West Midlands, including the many thousands of Welsh people who came there in the depression and who made such a tremendous contribution to our life. I think that they are deeply worried and disturbed about the Bill. They will look to me and other Members in England to speak up about their doubts and fears. I warn the Government now that those of us who are closely in touch with our constituents at the grass roots know the swirling feeling that there is in England about the Bill. That feeling may become a tide in time which could overwhelm the Government and the Labour Party.

The whole notion of devolution as expressed in the Bill is a piece of nonsense. There is a case, of course, for a federal system, but not a case for the proposals in the Bill. People want less government and better government,

whether they are in Cornwall, Pembroke, Argyll or Worcestershire. Devolution is a smokescreen for preserving the Labour Party's supremacy in Scotland and Wales. Everybody knows that there would hardly ever be a Labour Government in the United Kingdom except for the seats that Labour holds in Scotland and Wales.

These debates, particularly if the Bill is passed, will have been a shameful period in the history of Parliament. I have been proud to hear, as English of the English, that we are all part of the British nation—at least, we have been for over two and a half centuries. Quite clearly, as we discuss this muddled, confusing and dishonest Bill, day after day and night after night, the one thing that strikes one is that it is in fact an attack upon the whole British nation. Instead of this Parliament, at this time of economic trouble and inflation, getting down to the real business of bringing this country back to its former greatness, we find ourselves fooling about with the fundamentals of our parliamentary system.

Foreigners stare at us in amazement. The British constitution was, and is, the envy of the world. Now that we are economically down and almost out, we are starting to knock the constitution about.

Apart from being wrong in principle, the referendum proposals are absurd in detail. We have heard a lot today about the rights of English, Scottish and Welsh people to vote. The only way that that can be satisfied is by there being a referendum throughout the whole of the United Kingdom. Unfortunately, we had from the Labour Government in the late 1960s the gerrymandering of the constituency boundaries. Now, I fear, we have a very much more serious gerrymandering of our whole constitution.

Mr. Raison: Like many other hon. Members, I can never quite make up my mind whether I dislike the Bill or the referendum more. However, I suppose that we must face the fact that if the Bill goes through we shall have what the Government call "referendums". In other words, "referendums" are now like what they would no doubt call "agendums".
I wish to make two points. First, when I came into the Chamber to listen to the debate, I was not quite sure how my


feelings would go. It seemed to me, however, that the argument was put by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) with very persuasive force, and it has been put by other hon. Members since then. It is quite simply that now that the referendum has become consultative rather than mandatory in its effect, in all logic this means that there is a very powerful case for finding out the views of constituents from all parts of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Tom Ellis: Assuming that the referendum were held over the whole of the United Kingdom and assuming what might well be a likely result, that there was a substantial majority in England against any devolution proposals, and assuming the equally likely result that there was a substantial majority in Scotland for the devolution proposals, what judgment of Solomon, in its wisdom, would the hon. Gentleman advise the House of Commons to make?

Mr. Raison: I shall not advise the House of Commons now to make a judgment on that perfectly possible eventuality. If and when the time came, I should try to do my duty and try to vote as I believed proper. I believe that that is what hon. Members on both sides of the House of Commons would do. It is entirely in keeping with the traditions of Parliament.
One of the refrains in our debate today, as indeed in earlier times, has been the question of how far the proposals that are ostensibly for Scotland and Wales affect the United Kingdom as a whole. In other words, do the proposals for a Scottish Assembly and Scottish Executive and a Welsh Assembly have a significant impact on England and Northern Ireland?
This is a very important part, perhaps an essential part, of the argument. I shall not put at length the case for saying that these proposals have an important impact on the rest of the United Kingdom, because that case has been put very powerfully in several earlier debates. All that I shall do is quote the words of the Government themselves on this issue.
I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland, who has now taken over on the Government Front Bench, will listen very

carefully to the words of his own Government on the question whether the proposals for Scotland and Wales have an important impact on the rest of the United Kingdom. I refer to the White Paper "Our Changing Democracy", which was produced by the Government, in which they set out their proposals and which still remains the main statement of the Government's views on the whole matter.
In paragraph 5, on page 2, it is said,
The Government recognise however that these proposals concern the whole of the United Kingdom. Two issues are of particular importance—achieving a sound and stable distribution of responsibilities between Westminster and the devolved administrations; and ensuring that the proposals meet the reasonable needs of Scotland and Wales, while maintaining a fair balance between their interests and those of the rest of the United Kingdom. The Government now want to see full public and Parliamentary consideration of the proposals. The issues are extremely important for all the people of the United Kingdom; the arrangements proposed are novel; and in constitutional matters, where frequent change would be harmful, there is a need for the widest possible basis of agreement on the essential features before legislation is enacted which will inevitably be very complicated.
It is not possible to find a stronger or more clearly expressed argument for the case that the proposals that the Government are putting forward for the government of Scotland and Wales have a very direct effect on the government of the rest of the United Kingdom. Those words are the Government's own words, I ask the Secretary of State to pass on to the Minister of State, Privy Council Office—I presume that he will be replying to the debate—the fact that I have quoted those words, and perhaps he will see whether he can provide any kind of logical answer to that statement.
I ask for one more message to be passed on. What was meant when the Minister of State made the audible interjection "Not yet" when it was being said that the Bill does not allow for separation? We should like to know what he meant.

Mr. William Hamilton: I understand, Mrs. Butler, that according to the provisional selection of amendments we are taking with Amendment (o) Amendments (e), (i), (kkk), (lll), (nnn), (ooo), (ppp), (qqq), (rrr) and (sss). I believe that that is right.

The Temporary Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Hamilton: I thought so. The whole purpose of the amendment is to prevent the Government from getting into a bigger mess than they are in already. In more than a quarter of a century in this place I have never seen a bigger shambles. Nothing whatever can now salvage the dignity and integrity of the Government. They are now sitting back because tomorrow they will announce the guillotine—

Dr. Colin Phipps: We hope.

Mr. Hamilton: They will. They are not quite sure of the arithmetic—in fact, they are still working on it. Whatever the result is, nothing can save the Government. They are almost universally condemned in the country for what they are trying to do.
Many of us had reservations about the introduction of the principle of a referendum at the beginning. I recall how it happened. 'The present Secretary of State for Energy sought to get our party off the hook and he introduced a Ten-Minute Bill on a referendum. I recall having a cup of tea with him in the Tea Room afterwards. My right hon. Friend said "It does not matter very much, but it will get us out of a difficulty." At that time there was hardly any support for the principle of a referendum in the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party but my right hon. Friend won it around. That was the origin of the referendum for Europe. It was to be a one-off exercise.
But now the Government have introduced the referendum as a rearguard action, not at the beginning of the Bill. It was not the Government's intention to have a referendum. That was quite proper. It was brought forward as a means of buying off some of the opposition that they were encountering in their own party among their own supporters.
We are to have a further retrograde step. We are to have a regional policy on referendums. We are to have first-class citizens and second-class citizens in the United Kingdom. Before they start the Government are conceding the principle of separatism, the principle that somehow Scotland and Wales should be given preferential treatment. They say that only they should be given the vote

on a Bill that manifestly affects the whole of the United Kingdom.
I am an Englishman representing a Scottish division and I shall not have a vote in the referendum. I shall be advising people in Scotland how to vote but I shall not have a vote. I shall make a judgment here when the result is known, because it is a consultative referendum, but I shall not be allowed to vote. However, I shall be allowed to take part in the campaign, as will every other English Member. I hope that they will do so in their hordes.
But who will foot the bill? Is the IMF to be consulted? Were the IMF people told that we were to engage in additional expenditure consequent on referendums in Scotland and Wales?
The Government are pursuing a course of monumental tragedy for themselves and the whole democratic process. How can they defend saying to Scotsmen who are resident in England, either permanently or temporarily, that they will not be able to vote? Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will not have a vote. How can my right hon. Friend justify that? After all, my right hon. Friend is on the electoral rôle.

Mr. Harry Gourlay: My right hon. Friend is not complaining like other Scotsmen who live permanently in England.

Mr. Hamilton: He should be. That is one of the difficulties.

8.15 p.m.

The Government are not producing the Bill for any matter of principle. We all know why it is being introduced. It is 99 per cent. of the trouble that they are not convinced of the merits of the Bill. They are merely going through the motions. We are being pressurised from Scotland to vote for the guillotine tomorrow, or whenever the damned thing comes, but we shall not yield to that pressure. We shall not yield to that sort of blandishment. I should be less than honourable if I pretended that I was going to yield to it.

I say to my right hon. Friend that if he wins his guillotine next week that will not be the end of the story. It will be only the beginning of the story. It may well be that the Bill will get through


this place but there is another place. I think that I shall be very much in favour of Second Chambers. I am changing my mind about them. It seems that they have their uses. I hope that the other place will use such powers as it has. Do not let the Government pretend that if the guillotine motion is accepted that that will be the end of the story. In any event I do not think that they will survive. I am sorry to say that. I do not think that the Government can possibly survive the farce in which we are now engaged.

Mrs. Jill Knight: I have listened carefully to everything that has been said so far in the debate and we have not had any suggestion and we have not been vouchsafed by any signpost as to what the Government intend to do in respect of the amendment. I suppose that there have been one or two hints as certain shades have come across the faces of the occupants of the Government Front Bench from time to time during the course of our deliberations.
But it is true to say that the argument against the amendment seems to be on three different grounds. It is said that the people in England and Northern Ireland do not really care whether devolution occurs. That was the "soggy English" argument advanced from the Liberal Benches earlier. As some have already said, that argument is already beginning to sound a little stupid. It is also said that England and Ulster have no right to be consulted. It is said that the matter has nothing to do with them. It is said that the Scots and the Welsh who have moved into another part of the United Kingdom have cut themselves off from the right to utter on the future of the part of Britain from which, perhaps, they are only temporarily exiled.
A third reason has cropped up once or twice during the debate—namely, that it would be difficult if a referendum were held and there was a low percentage turn—out in certain parts of England. It was also argued that if such a referendum were permitted and every citizen in the United Kingdom was entitled to vote, the answer would not be what people wanted to hear. I am bound to say that that is the weakest argument of all. Surely

we do not ask people to take part in a referendum only because we think that they will answer in the way we want.
I hear someone from the Government Benches say that we do. I think that that is a disgraceful suggestion. When we approach the citizens of this country with a suggestion to hold a referendum we must do it sincerely and honestly because we genuinely want to know what they think about the subject. I do not like referendums. I would not support them, and one saw the slippery slope on which we were embarking when we began this whole rigmarole, but if there is to be a referendum it cannot be right that it should be adopted for only certain parts of the United Kingdom.
Of course people care about this matter. They care because of the deep constitutional significance of the break-up of the United Kingdom. They care because, as has been said, people have fought and died for the concept of Britain. Patriotism still exists, and it is no bad thing. Only a couple of years ago there was a "Back Britain" campaign. It was not a case of backing Chipping Sodbury, or England, or Woking, or anywhere else. It was Britain in which we were interested, and people care greatly about the concept of the United Kingdom and of being British citizens.
There are others who feel that the Bill gives benefits to Scotland and Wales that will lead to an imbalance of power. That is why they care, and that is a perfectly fair point to make. I received a letter from a constituent who said that if the Bill goes through it will be intolerable that any Scottish Members in the House of Commons will vote on the education or housing problems in my area, and a real understanding is beginning to grow that if the Bill ever becomes law unfair powers will be given to Scotland and Wales.
Some people feel strongly that it is grossly unfair that the number of Scottish MPs will be undiminished if this measure becomes law. There are, of course, other arguments against the Bill, and I turn to one that is advanced by the energetic and hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), who wote:
On the basis of £100 of public expenditure throughout the United Kingdom, someone in Scotland could get £119, while someone on Humberside could get only £87. That would


not be tolerated by the English regions which face problems that are as great, if not greater, than those in Scotland.
People do care about this matter. People are suspicious of the motives behind the Bill. They are right to feel suspicious. There are those in this House who not suspect, but are certain that there is one reason only for the Bill.

Mr. Cormack: Panic.

Mrs. Knight: Well, two then, for the reason that I was going to give was expediency. The Government's motives for presenting the Bill to the House are not worthy of them or of Parliament. People care about that, too, and they want to make their views known.
I maintain that England and Northern Ireland have a right to be consulted on this matter. It is a constitutional right. Reference has been made to the money that they will have to find. At the beginning of the debate this afternoon my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) mentioned a figure of £39 million, but that is only the beginning.

Mr. George Gardiner: One year.

Mrs. Knight: Yes, one year.
There are many other aspects of expense that are troubling people outside the House of Commons. I have here a letter which talks about the amount of money that the tourist authority will be obliged to spend from its funds to promote Wales and Scotland. That is another matter about which people have every right to be concerned, because there is no doubt that the Bill expects the rest of the United Kingdom to put its hands in its pockets, and the real point is that if there is to be no say, there should be no pay. The British people as a whole have a right to be consulted, especially when they are to be charged.
Was any warning ever given to Welsh or Scottish people that if they dared to leave their part of the United Kingdom and live somewhere else they would not be consulted about what is to happen in the land where they began and to which they may return? In many parts of England one finds societies. There are those who bite the leek, and there are those who spear the haggis. They do it with full hearts because they care very much about their country of origin. If the amendment were adopted they would

have a vote with everybody else, as they should have. All of us in this House care about this matter. We all believe that we have a right to hear what people in our constituencies think about what is proposed.
The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) said that people in Scotland talk about Scottish affairs and about housing as it affects Scotland. Does he think that no other part of the United Kingdom adopts that practice? People in Birmingham talk about Birmingham industry and about Birmingham housing, and I am sure that people in other constituencies speak about their areas. We speak about our constituencies, and the people in our areas speak about their areas but that is no reason to break up the United Kingdom. But, having decided to try to do just that, it is not right to say that only certain sections of our land shall be given the right to express views about what is proposed. The Government ought to want to know what everybody thinks.
Finally, I ask the Government two questions to which I hope they can provide good answers. Why is it that they do not want to know what other people think? Why are they deliberately so separatist in their policies? I warn them that when this subject comes up at future elections, as it will, I shall make full play of their intransigence if they do not hear the plea for justice and agree that there are those other than the Scots and Welsh living in Scotland and Wales who want to be consulted about the Bill.

Mr. Erie Ogden: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) said that she was making a plea for justice. My father always told me never to claim justice—a kind of unreal thing—but to make sure that I claimed my rights. When we come to the right of someone to take part in a referendum, that is a right conferred by Parliament, and it is conferred in different ways. That is what we are debating tonight.
Like that of the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes), this is my maiden speech on the Bill. It will not be a Second Reading speech, which I have complained about others making, but will be related strictly to the amendment.
The hon. Member for Edgbaston said that people care. I do not think she would suggest that the people on Merseyside are less caring than those in any part of the United Kingdom. The facts of geography place us on the north side of the boundary of Wales, make us the gateway to England from Ireland, and give us very strong Scottish connections. Therefore the people of Merseyside by race, as it were, by customs and by culture are a mixed group. They are proud of whence they came and of their links with other parts of the United Kingdom, and they are proud to be British. I am told that there are even some English people living in that part of the country equally with everyone else.
The people of Merseyside care as much about the United Kingdom as do the people of any other part of the country. I think that they care even more because they know very well that Merseyside is interdependent with every other part of the United Kingdom. We could be no more independent on Merseyside than pigs can fly or people can plait sawdust, and we do not try. Some of the people of Scotland and some of the people of Wales are claiming that they could be truly independent, and they might be constitutionally independent, but we doubt whether any part of these islands could be economically independent of the other parts, just as this country cannot be independent of Europe economically.

8.30 p.m.

Our complaint about some members of the nationalist movement is that, whereas we believe that we have a responsibility for Scotland and Wales, all too often it seems that some Scottish Members, and perhaps even some Welsh Members, claim that they have no responsibility for any part of Merseyside. But this must be a two-way traffic—something that hon. Members in the Scottish National Party might bear in mind from time to time.

The question in the amendment is whether the people of Merseyside or any other part of England should have a say in the referendums. The hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge and the hon. Member for Edgbaston say that their constituents are concerned and angry that they are not to have a voice. I have to put on record the simple fact

that my information brings to me that, as far as I am aware, my constituents could not care less about the Bill.

Sir Bernard Braine: The hon. Genlteman should consult the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer).

Mr. Ogden: I consult my constituents.

Sir Bernard Braine: The hon. Gentleman is not in touch.

Mr. Ogden: I remind the hon. Gentleman that when I went to Liverpool, West Derby, it was a Tory seat which had been held by a former Lord Chancellor and that it now has a 12,000 Labour majority. One does not get that kind of majority by being out of touch.
I have done my best to find out the situation from the normal information which comes to a Member, and as far as I am aware there is no interest on Merseyside in the contents of the Bill and no demand that the people there should have a voice in the referendums. I agree that there should be, and I have tried to stimulate it, but whilst I have had, like other hon. Members, a stream of letters about a Bill which is to come before the House on 25th February I have not received one letter about this issue from Merseyside since the presentation of the Bill. There have been no meetings about it, although, of course, we have discussed it in the Labour Party itself.
The hon. Member for Edgbaston suggested that the Bill was soggy and careless. I suggest, on the contrary, that it is generous. There is at least one little piece of poetry which might be appropriate—
Let them go
Let them tarry
I should not, perhaps, go on to say
Let them sink or let them swim",
but that is, in fact, the attitude that I have found not only on Merseyside but in other parts of Lancashire and also in the London area.
In other words, when I have tried to get discussion going about the Bill and its importance to the whole of the United Kingdom, people have said to me "If that is what the Scots and the Welsh want, let them get on with it". I have doubts about the wisdom of bringing this kind of question to the English, principally, in the first place, because I do not think that we have learned the lessons of


the referendum process. The referendum is a most important constitutional innovation, but I do not think that we have altogether understood as yet the power it gives or the changes that are brought about.
If the Bill included a decision that the degree of self-government proposed for Scotland and Wales was also to be judged in England, I would forecast—and it would be as likely to be wrong as any other forecast—that we would get a lower vote in England than we get in local government elections, and that the result could be interpreted in about 50 different ways. If, however, that English vote were to be the crucial factor in close decisions in Scotland and Wales, that would simply complicate the situation.
I am not opposed to the English people being asked whether they want to vote. At the moment, however, it is a fact that those whom I represent on Merseyside have said "That is your job to sort out. That is what we sent you to Parliament to do." That is an argument against a referendum, but that is what they are saying. It might be useful to my hon. Friends who claim that the English want a say if I tell them that from all parts of the United Kingdom I have had no indication that they want, would welcome or would take part in having a say.

Dr. Alan Glyn: I agree with a great deal of what the hon. Gentleman has just said and in particular about the absolute interdependence of this country and Scotland. All hon. Members must be aware of the deep implications in any form of separation. We should be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) for introducing the amendment, because as well as giving us a chance of discussing this vital constitutional issue it also gives many Back Benchers an opportunity, which was denied to us last night, of discussing the referendum. We waited here until 1.30 a.m. without success and I am deeply grateful to my hon. Friend.
I am sure that the House appreciates that the measure we are passing, in spite of its title—

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: We are not passing it. We are chucking it out.

Dr. Glyn: I hope that my hon. Friend is right but I shall not prejudge the issue. No one can possibly deny that the measure affects this country, because its implications are extremely important to us. I am extremely glad that the Leader of the House, for reasons that I shall not go into, has changed the referendum from a mandatory to a consultative one.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Political chameleon.

Dr. Glyn: It is a political method of overcoming the difficulties which the right hon. Gentleman would have faced had he not done so. Nevertheless, whether it is a consultative or a mandatory referendum it is of considerable constitutional importance because it entirely alters the constitution of our country and gives rise to the possibility of having a referendum on almost any issue whatever. It is no good trying to compare it with the EEC referendum, because it is entirely different.
The whole question of representation in the House of Commons is another important matter. If the House is affected —as it undoubtedly must be—by the implications of the Bill, are we still to have the same number of Scottish representatives? This is a matter which the House of Commons must consider. It is within the ambit of the amendment. [SEVERAL HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Oh yes, it is, because we are now discussing a referendum on a Bill the contents of which we do not yet know.
The fact that we have moved from a mandatory to a consultative referendum brings into question my hon. Friend's amendment, because we are now saying that the House of Commons, at the end of the referendum, has got the right to reconsider the whole issue. If it is to reconsider the whole issue, all the facts should be available. We should have before us the result of the referendum in Scotland, the result of the referendum in Wales, and the result of the referendum in the United Kingdom.

Mr. J. Grimond: I agree very much with what the hon. Gentleman has said. I was one of those who came into the Chamber with my mind somewhat unmade up. I am impressed by the fact that it is to be a


consultative referendum and that, even if the Bill is passed, Scotland will still be part of the United Kingdom.
I must confess that a powerful argument against an English referendum is that the English do not want it. That is indeed an argument against the proposition. I should be interested if the hon. Gentleman would say whether he thinks the English will vote in a referendum if they are offered it.

Dr. Glyn: I am aware that the right hon. Gentleman has been listening to the whole debate. The difference is that if the referendum had been mandatory, there would be little point in having a referendum in England. We do not yet know what the opinion of English people will be, but it would be of interest to Parliament. If in Orkney and Shetland, if it is to be done by constituencies, the people said "No, we do not want it" or "Yes, we do want it", and if throughout the whole of Scotland and Wales the margin of difference was very small and there was a low turnout, the House of Commons ought to know what the rest of the United Kingdom—Northern Ireland and England—wants. It is for us here in the end to balance the issue and ensure that every factor is taken into consideration. Therefore, we should know the feelings of our own countrymen.
Many people in different parts of the country have not cottoned on to how this measure will affect them. But feeling is growing and people are beginning to realise what is involved. Our debates are publicised daily. We shall no doubt go on debating this issue for a very long time. Therefore, people in many parts of England who have expressed little concern so far will probably begin to realise what is involved.
I must be frank. Like the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden), I have had a very low proportion of letters from constituents on this matter. But the letters that I have received have been very searching and have caused me a considerable amount of work.

Mr. George Gardiner: Speaking of interest or demand for a referendum, does my hon. Friend recall the argument that was put forward in the early stages of the call for a referendum on Common

Market membership? Many people argued that there was no great demand for a referendum, that there would be a low turnout, and so on. But what happened? The fact that there was to be a referendum concentrated people's minds on the issue and there was a high turnout.

Dr. Glyn: My hon. Friend has emphasised what I said to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond).

Mr. Cormack: Another point which my hon. Friend will certainly want to consider is that people are extremely perplexed. But is there any wonder when the Government are changing the Bill daily?

Dr. Glyn: My hon. Friend is right. The Bill is being changed daily. But the point made by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland is extremely important. When the Bill was published, people were unaware of what was involved. They just saw it as a Bill. This matter goes to the crux of the Bill.

Mr. Nick Budgen: Mr. Nick Budgen (Wolverhampton, South-West) rose—

Dr. Glyn: I have given way enough already. Gradually, as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) said, people are beginning to appreciate that they may be affected by the issue. That is one reason why it is important to get the views of the whole of the United Kingdom. If, for example, there were an overwhelming majority in England against the Bill, an enormous turnout in Scotland in favour of the Bill and a very low poll in Northern Ireland, it would be for the House of Commons to determine and weigh up the facts.
I am happy that the House of Commons is to be the ultimate judge whether this legislation is implemented. I do not like it. At least the Leader of the House has recognised the sovereignty of Parliament by converting the referendum from a mandatory to a consultative one. We have had the ultimate power restored to Parliament. For that reason it is essential that, before passing the legislation, Parliament should be in possession of the views of the whole of the United Kingdom. Before Parliament is called upon to make any decision, it should take into consideration the views of the whole


country so that it can assess the value of the referendum in Scotland, Wales and England.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Budgen: Would my hon. Friend deal with the point put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) when he said that the referendum on the Common Market had enabled the country to concentrate its mind on that issue? There are many who would argue that the country did not concentrate its mind on the Common Market. Speaking as a broadly pro-Marketeer, I say that many people thought that the issue was affected by the attitude of the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn), for example, who had a crucial influence on the vote, or by the amount of money which the CBI poured into the pro-Market campaign. Would my hon. Friend give his views on this?

Dr. Glyn: My hon. Friend has raised an important point. Nobody thought that the Common Market referendum would have attracted such a high turnout. But that is an entirely different proposition. In that instance legislation was already in effect. This case is completely different, because we would have an entirely new situation, a complete change in the Act of Union and in the composition of the United Kingdom. Before the Bill is put into operation we shall see the results of the referendum, and this House will be called upon to judge from those results whether it is right to pass the legislation.
I am very grateful that the referendum is no longer mandatory but consultative, and that power remains with this Chamber. I believe that we should give very careful consideration to the proposition put forward by my hon. Friend the Member. I believe that we should give very last time that we shall rely on a referendum, and that this House will always remain the legislative body for the United Kingdom.

Dr. Phipps: I did not support the referendum on the Common Market and I did not support the new clause on the referendum that was passed in the early hours of this morning. I supported neither for the same reason. It seems to me that by introducing referendums into our constitution we are giving the Government

of the day the most powerful weapon they could have in their hands. We are allowing them to appeal to the country over the heads of Members of Parliament. We are enabling them to decide the questions they will put, the timing and the money they will spend on a referendum.
I was ashamed that a referendum was introduced into our constitutional process in order to get the Labour Party off the hook over the Common Market, and I am equally ashamed about this further attempt to get the Labour Party off another hook. Whenever we find ourselves faced with a problem as a Government we revert to a form of lottery instead of debating the issue in Parliament and being prepared to take a decision ourselves. We try to circumvent the issue in some way by saying that it was not our fault and that this was what the country really wanted.
Just as we refused to face the issue of the Common Market, we are now refusing to face the issue of devolution. To me, referendums are nothing more than sidetracking—a red herring and a further attempt by the Government to try to get Labour Members off a particularly nasty hook and off the horns of a particularly nasty dilemma.
The amendment and the whole series of further amendments in the names of right hon. Members opposite and of some of my right hon. and hon. Friends effectively illustrate the great difficulties that we as a House of Commons face when we take this route. All the arguments that we have been hearing today have concerned the question of who is to be asked to vote in the referendum.
When the EEC referendum was held. I and three or four of my hon. Friends put down an amendment to the effect that Britons living overseas should be given the right to vote in that referendum. We based our arguments on the fact that a temporary residence abroad did not affect the relevance of Great Britain entering the EEC to people who were due to return or whose children were below voting age and could have been living in Great Britain at that time.
I spent eight years living outside this country, mainly in South America. I knew that I should return to the United Kingdom, and I should have been horrified had I been deprived of the right and


ability to vote on a proposal that affected me absolutely and directly.
The same is true of what is happening today. One cannot possibly say that a Welshman and a Scotsman should not have the right to vote in the country of their origin, a country to which they might very likely return and to which they might owe an allegiance as deep as any in their lives.
In addition, the effect on Englishmen does not just depend on what might happen to future relationships between the English regions and Scotland and Wales We all of us have personal relationships that go across supposed national barriers. Although I was born in England, I was brought up in Wales. My wife is Welsh and my parents-in-law live in Swansea. My wife lives with me in England. My brother, who is English like me, lives in Glasgow. My sister lives in La Jolla, in the United States. We are a very British family and we are characteristic of the way in which British families are spread all around the United Kingdom. All my ancestors were Northern Irish, so I have a fine mixture of typical British blood.
I resent most of all that under the provisions of the Bill and the referendum I am to be told that I am a particular kind of Briton, that I am not allowed to be a Briton in the way that the Minister of State is a Briton. By the time this Bill is finished not only shall I be a different type of Britain but I shall have a different nationality from the Minister of State, and I shall be living in a different country with a different passport. I shall resent the loss of my hon. Friend the Minister of State from this House.
But surely the essence of the problem we face on this referendum and the difficulties about who to ask to vote come down to the very roots of the whole question. That is that we are a United Kingdom and that therefore there is bound to be great difficulty in asking separate parts of the United Kingdom for their views on that unity. Surely the Government must face the fact that the Bill is not welcomed on both sides of the House of Commons or by all kinds of opinion throughout the country.
Surely the Government should face the fact that the answer to this problem is to withdraw the Bill. If necessary, if

the Government must have a guillotine, let us have it on Tuesday, get it out of the way and defeat it. That will then give the Government a reason for taking the Bill back and they can solve this problem by reintroducing another Bill that considers devolution on a United Kingdom basis. Then we should have a Bill that might be able to please the whole House of Commons.
I do not believe that all the long hours of debate that we have had have been in any sense wasted. These are matters which it is well for hon. Members to discuss. The level of debate has been good. Matters have been raised which hon. Members should discuss, and the debate has been intelligent and sincere. The Minister of State and his colleagues will have gathered an enormous amount of information that will enable them to bring in a new Bill based upon United Kingdom devolution, taking into consideration the legitimate desires and rights of every part of the United Kingdom. That would solve all the problems raised by all the amendments at one stroke, right down to Amendment No. "ZZZ".

Sir Bernard Braine: I do not think that in all my years in the House I have ever heard a more devastating criticism of the Government than we heard from the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton). Every single word that he uttered was justified. As a parliamentarian, I salute his candour and his courage. I should also like to say how refreshing I found the speech of the hon. Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Phipps). The Minister of State must by now know how bad the Bill is, how unwelcome it is, and how unworkable it will be.
The sad fact is that there is a case for devolution, but it is not expressed in any meaningful way in the Bill. There is a case for giving greater expression to the various regions of the United Kingdom, especially those which have a distinctive character, such as Scotland, with its separate legal system and its long and rich history—and Wales, too—

Mr. Richard Wainwright: And Yorkshire.

Sir B. Braine: —and, for that matter, other parts of England such as Yorkshire, Lancashire and Cornwall, and the


Province of Northern Ireland. But there is no provision in the Bill for that.
I am not opposed to devolution, but it must be a genuine and not a sham devolution. It must be a devolution extended to all the people. I am attracted by what the hon. Member for Dudley, West said a minute ago, that the Government should take this wretched Bill away. They should cut its throat, and then introduce a new Bill that has some relation to the realities of our situation and the needs of our people. We have had a long and historic debate, without a single dull speech and never a dull moment. By now the Government should have learned what sort of legislation to bring before the House. If they take this Bill away, the Government will not be regarded as having failed. They will be regarded as having learned. Let them then take it away and bring in another.
I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan), who has battled nobly, with great eloquence and great force, throughout these debates, arguing that there should be greater devolution of responsibility for Scotland—and, no doubt, for Wales, too. But by the same token why should there not be greater devolution for England? That is the question that English Members must keep on asking. Where is the logic in restricting devolution to Scotland and Wales, and not to Northern Ireland, which had a Parliament for 50 years until we took it away? We are all in the same boat. We are all over-governed, and I do not think that we have ever been so badly governed. There is then a case for devolution of responsibility, for giving the people of this country greater control over their own affairs.
What the Government are doing in this Bill, however, derogates from the power and responsibility of Parliament. It is our duty not merely to represent our constituencies, as an hon. Member suggested earlier, but to remember that we are part of a deliberative assembly, the council of the nation, representing the United Kingdom as a whole.

9.0 p.m.

I do not ignore the existence of minorities with grievances. But these are not limited to Scotland and to Wales. There

are the English regions. I spent 12 years in the House of Commons with my constituents on Canvey Island asking what was the point of parliamentary government when their pleas to successive Governments to be heard about the progressive destruction of their environment were ignored. There were many people in Canvey Island who used to talk, perhaps jokingly, about a UDI. Here at any rate was one community which felt that Governments did not care. I do not doubt that there are plenty of people in Scotland who feel that government does not care and has become remote, and people in Wales who feel the same, and, for that matter, probably in Yorkshire, too.

Mr. Cormack: And Staffordshire.

Sir B. Braine: Yet it is my basic conviction that the strength and glory of our country lies in this rich variety of people. I thought that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees) went right to the heart of the matter. As Renan said, a nation is what it feels itself to be. Until this wretched issue raised its head and until the Government weakly felt that they had to brush off the SNP challenge in Scotland by introducing this Bill, no one from one end of the kingdom to the other, outside a handful of Celtic fanatics, felt that we were not members of the British nation.
A nation is a web of community welded together by common experience and common sacrifice, and I say to you especially, Colonel Crawshaw, that those who flocked to the colours in two world wars, a high proportion of whom either did not come back at all or came back broken, did not do so for any narrow nationalism. They did so for Britain. I suggest that they would be horrified to learn about the little men who are now taking us down a path which inevitably will lead to disunity, which will pit one part of the kingdom against another, and will lead inevitably to the break-up of our country.
I have to apologise to the Committee. I have sat through a large part of the debate, but I was not here at the very beginning because I was in the Chair of the Select Committee on Overseas Development. Our work there is of great importance. But the Committee will understand that my feelings throughout the whole of our deliberations upstairs were not there but were down here in the


Chamber. I was impatient to get here, because of my conviction that what we are discussing goes to the heart of our very being as a people.
The future of our country and of our race is at stake. The Government may think light of it. But Ministers should look round at the Benches behind them. They should listen to the speeches which have come from their own supporters. If the Leader of the House had been here for the greater part of the debate, he would have heard speech after speech denouncing the Bill.
Even with the belated concession of consultative referendums, in my view the Bill is unconstitutional, illogical and politically inept. But let no one make any mistake about it. The Bill will change the constitution of our country. It will set in motion a train of events which could lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom. Although the vast majority of the British people may still be unaware of what is at stake and what is being done in their name, I believe that when they awaken to it the Government will not know what has happened to them.
I state my conviction, that it is surely wrong to have referendums, even consultative ones, to set up Scottish and Welsh Assemblies but to deny the right to vote to the people of Northern Ireland, who had a Parliament for 50 years until we took it away, and to the people of England. It is illogical to permit people of non-Scottish birth and non-Welsh birth to vote in a referendum in those two countries, but to deny the right to people of Scottish and Welsh birth to vote in referendum in England. It is equally illogical to prevent the English from expressing a view. All the people of our land have a right to be consulted, especially about so grave a matter.
Since time immemorial, the basis of parliamentary government has been the maxim
That which touches all should be approved by all".
It should not be necessary for me to remind the Leader of the House of that. Once upon a time he was a great parliamentarian, one of the great defenders of the rights of Parliament. Now let all the people speak. Let us ask Scotsmen and

Englishmen living in England and Northern Ireland their view of the matter.

Mr. Dalyell: One of the greatest speeches made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House was on 2nd May 1972 against a guillotine motion.

Sir B. Braine: Will the hon. Gentleman repeat that please?

Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Gentleman was saying that the Leader of the House was a great parliamentarian. He is still a great parliamentarian, as I went to some lengths to say last night, and he is a great writer and biographer. But I remind the hon. Gentleman that one of his greatest speeches was on 2nd May 1972 against a guillotine motion. Those of us who heard it cannot fail to remember its eloquence and power against the use of the guillotine on a constitutional issue.

Sir B. Braine: The Committee will be grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding us of that occasion. I see the Leader of the House leaving the Chamber. I hope that it is merely to refresh his memory, but it may be to hang his head in shame. There is nothing sadder than to see the great fall. They fall mightily and with a great noise. The right hon. Gentleman's reputation was already getting threadbare before the Bill, but it is now torn into shreds.
The idea of a referendum is wrong. It is a derogation from the authority of Parliament. The idea, previously alien to our constitution, was first mooted in the 1890s in relation to Gladstone's proposals to give Home Rule to Ireland. It is interesting to recall what Dicey, the great constitutional authority, said about a referendum at that time. He wrote:
The referendum is the people's veto: the nation is sovereign and may wall decree that the constitution shall not be changed without the direct sanction of the nation
That is a straightforward pronouncement. The nation means the whole nation.
The Government have no right, no mandate—and they know it—to tamper with the constitution of this country and to deny to the English, the Northern Irish and Scots and Welshmen living in both countries, a right to express their views on a matter as grave as this. It is a great derogation from the Government's responsibility. They should be ashamed of it. Unless there is some sign


very soon that the Government are having second thoughts—

Mr. Cormack: I see that the Leader of the House has returned with a copy of the speech to which the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) referred.

Mr. Dalyell: I remind my right hon. Friend the Lord President that in that speech he said:
There is a further reason why it is improper for this Government in particular to introduce a guillotine. There is a further limitation."—[Official Report, 2nd May 1972; Vol. 836, c. 234.]

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): Order. We are not discussing guillotine motions. We are discussing whether the referendum should be extended to the whole of the United Kingdom. The hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) has roused my patriotic fervour. I hope that he will now return to the amendment.

Sir B. Braine: I bow to your ruling, Mr. Crawshaw, as always. I had no intention of straying from the paths of rectitude until I was reminded by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) of that great and historic speech by the Leader of the House all those years ago.
When the right hon. Gentleman walked out of the Chamber at that point we wondered whether it was because he had a guilty conscience or because he had gone to refresh his memory. What is clear is that for him Parliament no longer matters. That is the gravamen of the argument.
In short, a referendum should not be used in the trivial way in which it would be used under the Bill. It should be used only on matters of the gravest kind affecting everyone in the kingdom and consulting everyone. I hope that as a result of this debate the word will go out to every constituency in the land as to what the Government are doing in the name of our people.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: I am sure that the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) will forgive me if I do not follow him in Second Reading style. However, because we have followed each other in previous debates on the Bill, he will know that I have great sympathy with many of the points he has made.
You will be relieved to hear, Mr. Crawshaw, that I intend to confine myself to the amendment. I am not a great lover of the Bill in general, and I have great doubts about the proposal to extend the franchise in this way, or at least to extend it on the basis of the type of question which the Government have in mind. I know that they are talking about changing the question slightly and that they are stressing that it should be a consultative referendum, but we all know full well that it is very difficult for any Government to define the results of a referendum, whether or not it is consultative.
If there were unexpected results, whether the referendum was consultative or mandatory, there would be great pressures on the Government to follow those results. Assuming that the question is anything of the type now envisaged, I doubt whether there is a strong case for extending the franchise in this way.
Some hon. Members have suggested the enfranchising of first-generation Scotsmen and Welshmen. Although I have some claims in that direction, we would all accept the difficulty of identifying Welshmen in England or Scotland and of dealing with complex matters of that sort. The statistical basis does not exist, because the figures are mainly estimates. I am not saying that the exercise would be impossible, but it would be extremely difficult. Once we have agreed to include first-generation Scotsmen and Welsh people, others will be making claims. The desirability of such an enlargement of the franchise is debatable. The difficulty is that if, as has been suggested, one extends the franchise to the United Kingdom as a whole in a referendum posing such a question, one deprives Parliament of its sovereignty because, although the referendum will be consultative, we know that they would be a stupid Government who defied the result.

9.15 p.m.

Therefore, if we are to have the kind of question that is now envisaged, I am not in favour of such an extension of the franchise. There would be an argument in favour of extending the franchise if different questions were to be posed in the referendum. I do not intend to stray


into discussing the next batch of amendments, but the size of the franchise cannot be considered without also considering the kind of questions that are to be asked, because they are highly relevant to the question of to which people they will be put.

If the whole basis of the referendum were to be changed, and if we were to have a more complex questionnaire asking people about their views on devolution in general, there would be an argument for asking not only the people of Scotland and Wales but the people of England for their views. If there were such questions and such an approach to the referendum, there would be an overwhelming case for an extension of the franchise. My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) asked earlier how costly and complex the process would be, but all our experience in this direction shows that the additional processing of a three- or four-question questionnaire would involve minimal additional complexity and cost. At the end of the road we would at least know something.

From the sort of operation that is now being prepared, in which we shall be asking the people of Scotland and Wales whether they wanted the Government's proposals, we shall know nothing after carrying out the exercise. At least, if there were a more complex questionnaire of the sort that I am asking for we should have a basis for proceeding with realistic devolution proposals not only for Scotland and Wales but for England. That is the great advantage of the sort of questionnaire that I propose, and in those circumstances I should be in favour of extending the franchise to the United Kingdom.

Dr. Phipps: Does my hon. Friend accept that the Government are not interested in a referendum that would allow them to provide a better devolution Bill? They are concerned only with getting this Bill on to the statute book. They have the great advantage that Governments always have with referendums because they pose the questions. Hon. Members can propose other questions, but the chances of achieving sufficient agreement upon them—as we can see from all the amendments that we have today—and of getting them accepted is never as

strong as the Government's powers to get their question accepted. Therefore, we are faced willy-nilly with the Government's question.

Mr. Roberts: I accept that. The Government's approach to devolution is limited and seems to be associated with the contingencies in Scotland. This is not really a proposal for devolution for the United Kingdom as a whole.
If the Government were prepared to think again and to allow the United Kingdom as a whole to consider devolution and say what measure of devolution was wanted, we should be prepared to go along with a Bill that could be of use not only to Scotland and Wales but to the United Kingdom as a whole.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I have sat through many hours of our Committee proceedings and this is only my second contribution. I am happy to tell the Government that I shall not take long, but there are a number of points that I wish to register with them and I hope that they will listen sympathetically.
It is always a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) because, whatever one may think of him, he is a great parliamentarian. There is no doubting the conviction with which he spoke, and I hope that his points registered with the Leader of the House, who until recently also had an exceptional reputation as a defender of Parliament and all it stands for.
Having listened to the speeches of the hon. Members for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) and Dudley, West (Dr. Phipps) and my hon. Friends the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) and Aylesbury (Mr. Raison), I have tremendous confidence in the future of parliamentary democracy in this country. I am put in one part of the Tory Party, but in no circumstances could my hon. Friends the Members for Worthing and Aylesbury be described as being on the reactionary right wing of the Tory Party. The hon. Members on the Government side to whom I have referred take the same view as my hon. Friends and myself about the Bill and the amendment.
I say to the Scottish and Welsh nationalists that I am proud to be British, not


just English. On so important an issue as the one we are discussing all the people of the United Kingdom should have the opportunity to give their opinions in a consultative referendum on what the Government are doing. We know that the Government will not be bound by the referendum and that the House of Commons will take the ultimate decision. Surely it would therefore be better for the Government to know what ail the people of the United Kingdom, rather than just the people of Scotland and Wales, think about what they are doing.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) said that he had received no letters about devolution from his constituents. I have received many hundreds of letters from my constituency, from individuals and companies who are deeply concerned about the implications of the Bill and the effect that separation would have on industry and commerce.

Dr. Phipps: Can the hon. Gentleman help us by speculating on how the referendums would develop in various parts of the United Kingdom as the campaign get going? If, as seems likely, the result was an overwhelming vote for the Union in Scotland and for separation in England, how might the Government handle that situation?

Mr. Winterton: I am tempted to follow the hon. Gentleman and to launch into a far longer speech than I originally intended, but I shall not follow speculation from hon. Members opposite. Their understanding of speculation is unacceptable to me, and my speculation along the lines suggested by the hon. Member would be unacceptable to the Committee.
In the EEC referendum the two polling areas in my constituency returned the biggest percentage vote in Cheshire. Perhaps I am in a rather different position from hon. Members from Merseyside. My constituents are interested in what is going on and will wish to have their say in a referendum on devolution.
Although mine is a large English constituency with about 84,000 electors I represent several hundreds of Scots and several hundreds and perhaps thousands of Welsh people. They feel strongly that although some of them may live permanently in my area there are many others who will ultimately return to Wales

and Scotland. They feel that they will be robbed—and one cannot choose a better word—of an opportunity of casting their vote and having an influence on a decision that could affect their future.

Mr. Buchan: Is the hon. Member's argument that there are people in England or in Wales who might return to Scotland and that there are people in Scotland and in England who might return to Wales and that therefore they should be entitled to vote? Does he think that all the hundreds of Labour voters who have lived in Macclesfield and gone to live elsewhere should be allowed to vote against him at the next election?

Mr. Winterton: Many people came to Macclesfield as Socialist supporters but have subsequently changed.
The case for England and Northern Ireland having a say is that the Bill—and this view is shared by many of my hon. Friends—fundamentally alters the structure set up by the Act of Union. In the discussions on Clause 1, when I made my first contribution to this debate, I said that I stood by the Act of Union and that I intended to do so throughout the passage of the Bill. Perhaps the Treasury Bench will argue that the Bill does not infringe the letter of that Act, but there is no doubt that it alters the structure set out in that Act. That is a serious matter.
The hard—pressed taxpayers of England will have to pay for the block grant while losing control of how that substantial sum of money will be spent. That can only be described as taxation without representation. There is no doubt that there will be a grave constitutional crisis every year when the block grant is negotiated.
I return to the question of participation. The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Education have stated that they want the public to participate. They have said that they want involvement. I say to them that they have put forward a referendum. They have changed it from a mandatory referendum to a consultative referendum. Why do they not wish to listen to the views expressed by the people in the United Kingdom? Surely it is vital on a decision that will be binding. Whether the Government cast a smokescreen across the Committee by introducing a consultative


referendum rather than a mandatory referendum, it would be an unwise Government who did not implement whatever the majority view of the referendum turned out to be. It could well be that that majority will be thin. Not only will the Government be using all the power of the Government machine, but inevitably they will feel themselves obligated to follow and to implement the result of the referendums.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: The hon. Gentleman mentioned that it would be rash of any Government not to follow the majority decision in the referendum. Would he care to say what that majority would be? Would that be the majority of the United Kingdom as a whole, the majority in Scotland, or the majority in Wales, as the case may be? Or does the hon. Gentleman accept that the English people, being 10 times stronger in numbers than those in Scotland, have the right to overrule the Scottish people in terms of Scotland?

Mr. Winterton: I describe the people of our kingdom as the people of the United Kingdom. I believe—I say this with emphasis to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson)—that the greatness of our country is based on all the talents and the abilities of the people who comprise the four countries that are the United Kingdom. As I said earlier—perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not present—not only am I proud to be English, but I am proud to be British. The success of our country has been based upon all the advantages, talents and abilities that comprise the four countries of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Whatever may be the views in the Committee on whether devolution or independence are sound or otherwise, surely the hon. Gentleman cannot think that a referendum that could include votes in England would have any validity whatever given the size of England's population as against the size of the population of Scotland. Does he not realise that that would be an example of the horse and rabbit pie syndrome, when the restaurateur said "It is fifty-fifty. One horse to one rabbit"?

Mr. Winterton: I have considerable respect for the right hon. Member. On many subjects he and I agree. [HON.MEMBERS: "Oh."]

Mr. Dalyell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Winterton: I shall give way shortly. The right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) put a point to me and it is only right that I should answer him. Obviously, there would be a break-down of the poll in a referendum if it were effective throughout the United Kingdom. Perhaps I may say to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) that there might be a break-down to show how the people of Orkney and Shetland felt about the Bill.
In the light of all the evidence and the results of the referendum, the Government could then make a proper and considered decision on whether to proceed with devolution. Surely that is the answer. The Government would know the views of all people in the United Kingdom, those of Scotland and Wales, of Orkney and Shetland, and of England.

Mr. Dalyell: How about a specific sample of the subjects on which the hon. Gentleman agrees with the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart).

Mr. Winterton: Although I am tempted to drift from my line of argument, it would not be in order for me to discuss matters outside the amendment.
It has been said in a number of speeches on this very important amendment that the interest in the United Kingdom as a whole in what is going on and the implications of the Bill is increasing. It is not for me, as a humble Back Bencher, to warn the Leader of the House about what he is doing. However he is gravely wrong if he feels that the current action of the Government is to the advantage of either the Labour Party or the country as a whole. People are gravely concerned about what is going on. If for party political reasons the Government are to progress and press the Bill through the House of Commons, with or without a guillotine, all I can say is that the Lord President and the Government are in for a rough ride.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman and the Minister of State seriously to consider


extending the referendum—the amendment is a very good one—to all the people of the United Kingdom. The smokescreen that has been drawn across the whole issue by declaring that the referendum will be consultative rather than mandatory surely leads the Government to realise that it is now absolutely right and proper that all people in this country should have a say on this vital issue. The Government need not heed what the various parts of the country say, but at least they will know what the country says, and at the moment they do not.

Mr. Donald Anderson: I see no point in extending the referendum to the whole of the United Kingdom, for two good reasons. First, I think that the bulk of the English electorate will not have a sufficient interest in the question to be posed. I find it hard enough to detect any real interest among my own electorate in Wales. Their concern is with rather more down-to-earth issues such as the cost of living, housing and jobs. Devolution is not something that concerns them, although one would think otherwise when reading the columns of the so-called national newspaper of Wales. The opinion leaders talk about almost nothing other than devolution, whereas the man in the street thinks of everything but devolution.
Given the difficulties of even trying to excite some interest in devolution among the electorate in Wales—I do not know about Scotland—I can see little chance of exciting interest in English constituencies save, perhaps, in areas contiguous to Wales—for example, Merseyside and Bristol.

Mr. Clement Freud: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, if he gets no response from his electorate in Wales and the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) gets over 100 letters about devolution from the people of Macclesfield, there must be every right for the people of England to have a referendum?

Mr. Anderson: I have every confidence in the statistics that have been given by the hon. Member for Macclesfield, yet I have my doubts. I say no more, judging from my own postbag on the issue. I have come to my decision because of possible disinterest and the

difficulty of achieving a sufficient turnout of the English electorate.
Although I concede that the Bill affects the whole of the United Kingdom, the opinion of the English electorate would be largely irrelevant in political terms to the points that are to be discussed, in the sense that if the people of Wales and the people of Scotland decided that they wanted to have Assemblies, it would be politically inconceivable, if England were to decide that it did not want Assemblies in Wales or Scotland, for Wales or Scotland to be denied those Assemblies.
Those two points—first, disinterest in England, and, secondly, the political irrelevance of the choice being given to the English electorate—cause me to oppose the amendment.

Mr. Cormack: This is really the first time that I have intervened in this long series of debates although I have sat through many of the long hours of debate.
As I have listened to the Lord President I have often thought,
Foot! thou shouldst be living at this hour".
We have seen a complete travesty of the man whom we knew as the great parliamentarian and the great champion of our liberties. I was delighted to see that he brought in the great speech to which the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) referred, the speech that the right hon. Gentleman made on the guillotine motion in 1972. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman has re—read it. I have been watching him and he seems to have re-read it with great interest. I hope that he has had a reconversion and that he will realise that what has been said during the debate, which has been one of the crucial debates, has been of vital significance to everyone in the Committee and throughout the country.
I think that the House of Commons has a great debt to my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) for moving the amendment. My hon. Friend has put his finger on the nub of the whole question. We are in an absurd position. We have got ourselves into the most ridiculous posture through having had the Bill thrust upon us. I agreed so much with what was said by the hon. Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Phipps). It is an absurd Bill, and it seems to me that the most honourable suggestion that


has been put to us in recent weeks came from the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh), who had an amendment—it was not called—to the effect that we ought to have a separate Bill for the referendum, have the referendum, and, if devolution were approved, move on to a sensible devolution Bill.

Mr. Dalyell: I was referring specifically to the statement by my right hon. Friend that the guillotine is the last resort of a Government who know that they cannot get the full-hearted consent of Parliament but are determined to have their way.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. The hon. Member knows that we are not discussing the guillotine. I have already ruled on that.

Mr. Cormack: In view of your remarks, Mr. Crawshaw, I shall not be tempted to pursue that issue any further.
What we are seeing—and many hon. Members have touched upon this—is the destruction of our patrimony as a nation. If we do not have a United Kingdom referendum—having decided that we shall have one—we shall deny to the vast majority of our people the chance to pass their comments on the most fundamental constitutional changes that have been advanced in this nation for 250 years or more. To suggest that this is in any way invalidating the claims of the Scots or the Welsh is wrong. It can be a referendum that is taken—as the referendum on the Common Market was taken—by counties, and we shall then know what they think in Scotland and Wales.
I should like a two—question referendum that allows people in Scotland to say whether they want independence. I believe that that is a perfectly logical, defensible and entirely honourable point of view. If the majority of the Scottish people decide that they want independence, I for one shall not for a moment attempt to prevent them from having it, even though the referendum is a consultative one. But I do not believe that that is what they would say. I should argue forcefully in Scotland and elsewhere to try to persuade them not to say that they want independence. That is something that I am sure SNP Members would accept.
It is manifest nonsense to have a referendum merely in Scotland and Wales when the central issue is separation. Members of the SNP will never be satisfied until they have total separation, and that is an honourable point of view. Hon. Members who represent Plaid Cymru will never be satisfied until Wales has independence. They see devolution as merely a step along the road. They see the Assemblies as merely a step on the road towards independence. Therefore, let the people of Scotland and Wales say what they think on that issue, and let the people of the United Kingdom as a whole say what they think about the structure of this country.

Mr. Ogden: May I, as one English Member to another, ask the hon. Gentleman what would happen if both Scotland and Wales voted forcefully in favour of independence and the majority of people in England said "No"? If the British Government gave Assemblies to Scotland and Wales, what sort of relationship would there be between the British Government and the English people who would say "You asked us for our opinion. We told you, but you took no notice of us. Why bother asking us?".

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Cormack: With respect, I think that the hon. Gentleman has missed the point. We are dealing with the future structure of the United Kingdom. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees) said in a poetic and moving speech, the United Kingdom is a nation. We are all British. We all ought to have the opportunity to express our views on the future of Britain.
If those who live in Scotland and Wales decided by a majority that they wished to have no further part in the United Kingdom, I would be deeply saddened. I do not think that would happen. I do not believe that is what they would opt for. I believe that we could salvage something out of what has become the most chaotic piece of legislation placed before us for many a long year. I believe that we could by a nationwide referendum help the nation to come together again, to make people think British and realise the great things that the nation has achieved, the things that are at stake, and the things that the nation could achieve in the future.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Without necessarily wishing to advance the hon. Gentleman's notion that people should think British, I ask him whether he does not think that he would be laying a lot of mines around those who do wish to think of themselves as British. If there were a referendum on devolution and the question in England brought out a massive "No" but a "Yes" in Scotland, where then would hon. Members be? Either they would accept the Scottish situation and vote for devolution against the interests of the English, or vice versa. It is a question of no man being able to have two masters. One could cause tremendous ill-feeling either in Scotland or in England.

Mr. Cormack: We have been led into a morass. I believe that if we had a United Kingdom referendum the vast majority of the people would opt to remain in the United Kingdom and would wish the country to remain roughly as it is. I should like to see three, not two, questions on the referendum form—"Do you want independence?; Do you want a devolved power along the lines suggested in the Bill?; Do you want in effect the status quo?" I believe that the vast majority of the people would opt for the latter, but I do not know. I want to put it to the test.
The referendums are to be consultative, and the House of Commons makes the sovereign decision at the end of the day because only the House of Commons can do it. We can be grateful to the Government for the change they have made, although late in the day, in the status of the referendums. To have had mandatory referendums would have been wrong. But there is no logical reason for denying the English people and the people of Northern Ireland a chance to say what they think about the constitution and the structure of our country. Whether we live in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland or England, we are all British, and we all ought to have an opportunity to express our opinions on this great issue.
I hope that the Leader of the House will do what he boasted he had done yesterday when he was criticised for bringing forward amendments to the new clause so early. He said "Why criticise me, since I have listened to what the Committee has said?" The opinion of

the Committee in this long and major debate is that the Government ought to think again about the nature of the referendums, and I hope that the Government will now agree to make a United Kingdom referendum, giving everyone a chance, wherever they may live, to say what they think about the future of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Leon Brittan: So often in our debates on the Bill, whatever the particular subject has been, the central dilemmas of the Bill have been pinpointed and ruthlessly exposed. That has happened again today. I suggest, therefore, that although the debate has been in many ways an unhappy one it has also been instructive.
The debate has been unhappy because it has provided a peculiarly vivid illustration of the impossible dilemmas presented by this form of Bill and the way in which it has been proceeded with by the Government. It has been an instructive debate precisely because it has provided so vivid an illustration of that problem and has once against given us the opportunity of seeing the heart of the illogicality that is put forward in the form of this legislative proposal.
I have put it in a rather mild fashion, but the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) was not prepared to be as generous as that in his analysis. Indeed he expressed it in words which were remarkable from a supporter of the Govment. The hon. Gentleman said that nothing could save the Government from almost universal contempt for what they were doing. That was the considered judgment of an experienced supporter of the Government with regard to the Bill. How right the hon. Gentleman was.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees) felt that we in the House of Commons should speak for Britain. Our complaint is that the form of the Bill and the way it has been processed through the House are such as to make it very difficult for us to respond to a call of that kind. The problem of who should vote in the referendum is merely one illustration of the general difficulty. As the hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes) said, this problem would have been one of many which might have been avoided had the proposal to have separate Bills and


separate referendums for Scotland and Wales been implemented.
In analysing the difficulty posed by the referendum and the question of whether there should be a United Kingdom vote or only a vote in Scotland and Wales, one cannot help observing the genesis of the whole referendum. The Bill itself consists of fierce controversies of principle and deep divisions of detail, and the referendum, which has been brought in as an attempt to resolve this matter, has been brought in in a narrow political sense—not necessarily in a party political sense, but as an attempt to cut the Gordian knot.
It is essentially a trivialisation of the concept of a referendum to try to introduce it in the middle of the Government's considerations on how to proceed and then to change the proposal as they go along. My hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) said that a referendum should not be used in a trivial way. That is why we find ourselves in this problem. We do not wish to defeat the Bill by means of the referendum. We want to defeat the Bill on the Floor of the House. It has already been defeated in argument on the Floor of the House. We should like to complete the job, but not by a referendum.
I therefore say that the argument that my hon. Friends have put forward is a logical one and is extremely difficult to refute. But the problem we face is that they are trying to apply logic to a proposition which has been put forward not on logical grounds but on the narrowest of political grounds. They are trying to make sense out of a proposal which cannot be made sense of in the way that it has been put forward.
The logic is quite clear. It is that the Bill undoubtedly affects the United Kingdom as a whole and not only Scotland and Wales. My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) clearly indicated that the Government themselves have accepted that proposition in the White Paper—or the Green White Paper —on the English regions. My hon. Friend invited the Minister of State, who was momentarily out of the Chamber, to address himself to that point. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) also pointed out that the referendum was about a matter which,

directly or indirectly, intimately affected the whole balance of the government of the United Kingdom. We cannot make changes of this magnitude to the government of Scotland and Wales and then say that it is not a matter affecting England.
To do them credit, the Government in their White Paper did not pretend any such thing. Therefore, it is not satisfactory for the hon. Member for Renfrew-shire, West (Mr. Buchan) to say that the people of Scotland and Wales do not want to decide the affairs of other parts of the country and that the people of England should take a similar self-denying ordinance. Apart from that, as has been pointed out, the intimate connections of a personal kind between people living in England, Scotland and Wales are so great that it is totally artificial to attempt to divide the matter in that way.
At a later stage we shall be coming to a series of amendments dealing with the question of people of Scottish origin, birth or connection living in England and people from Wales in a similar position. My hon. Friends recognise the considerable administrative difficulties of dealing with problems of that kind.
This debate illustrates the fact that, whether one looks at the effect of the Bill on the constitution of the United Kingdom or considers the personal connections between people living in England, Scotland and Wales, the logic is undoubtedly clear—that the Bill affects the United Kingdom and that it is wholly logical and reasonable for the people of England and Northern Ireland to want the opportunity to express their views.
The problem that arises and the reason why this is a Back Bench and not an official Opposition amendment is explained by the fact that we are trying to apply a logical solution to a proposition which has been put forward on political grounds. It is a political device. The problem is that, if one uses the logic which has been so powerfully applied during the debate, the whole point of the political device is defeated.
I do not hold with the political device. I am unattracted by it. But we cannot square the circle. It is a political device to enable the Government to do one of two things. The purpose of the referendum at the lowest level is to secure votes


for the guillotine. That is so despicable purpose that I shall waste no further breath on it.
Putting it at a slightly more elevated political level, however, the purpose is in a sense to legitimise the decision of the House of Commons. If, the Bill having got through the House, it is then put to a referendum in Scotland and Wales and it is defeated, as a matter of practical politics it is inconceivable that it would not also be defeated in England and Northern Ireland. That must be so. I do not think that anyone would argue to the contrary.
If we had a United Kingdom-wide referendum and somehow or other the Bill, despite the powerful advocacy of reasonable men and women against it, scraped through in Scotland and Wales but was defeated in England and Northern Ireland, the whole point of this device would be defeated and we should face a political disaster because the Government would be in a dilemma.
What will happen if the Bill is dropped? The people of Scotland and Wales will say that their political future has been vetoed by the people of England and Northern Ireland. If, on the other hand, the Government were to go on with the Bill, despite the majority wishes of the people of England, they would be imposing on the people of Scotland and Wales and on the people of the United Kingdom as a whole a system of government which the majority of people in the United Kingdom had voted against. There is no answer to that problem. The Government would find themselves facing a political disaster. The moral that I draw is not that we can solve the problem by having a referendum in England as well, but that the whole proposition, put forward for political motives, cannot be solved in that kind of way at all.
Reference has been made to the fact that there is now a change because the referendum is to be consultative and not mandatory.

Mr. Budgen: Is not this an argument against the whole principle of referendums and not only against the amendment?

It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Scotland and Wales Bill may be proceeded with at this day's sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Tinn.]

SCOTLAND AND WALES BILL

Again considered in Committee.

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Mr. Brittan: My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) asks whether that is an argument against the whole principle of referendums. But we are not debating that tonight; we debated it yesterday. Whatever the general merits or otherwise of referendums, we all know why this one is being put forward, how it is being put forward and for what purpose it is being put forward.

Mr. Benyon: But the fact is that we have referendums. My hon. Friend's argument is that if one has stomach-ache one does not take the medicine. We have referendums, and we must act accordingly.

Mr. Brittan: We have been given a stomach-ache by the Government, and the medicine proposed to deal with it would simply transfer the ache from one part of the abdomen to another and would not cure the disease. That is the problem. I have the greatest possible sympathy with my hon. Friend's amendment. I am wholly and totally impressed by the logic of it, but I fear that the disease with which we have been presented by the Government is incapable of being cured by this means.

Mr. John Smith: At the beginning of his speech the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) attempted to disguise the fundamental nature of his disagreement with his hon. Friends. He suggested that the amendment was very logical and that it had his sympathy, but at the end of the day he put forward some very devastating criticisms of the proposition advocated by his hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner). I thought that he dealt with the amendment extremely well. He should not try


to have a fake alliance with his hon. Friends on the Back Benches who are totally opposed to the Bill when he knows that their position is totally unsound and that he has no intention of supporting it.

Mr. Brittan: The Minister talks about a fake alliance. I do not think that any speech that I have made during the long debates on this Bill could have left him with any illusions. I am as totally opposed to the Bill as anyone in this Committee.

Mr. Smith: But the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby suffers from one disability which does not afflict his hon. Friends. As a member of the Front Bench, he supports the Conservative Party commitment to a directly elected legislative Assembly for Scotland. His hon. Friends attack the whole principle of devolution, but it is much more difficult for hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench to do that. Obviously the Conservative Party does not object to the concept of devolution for Scotland in principle. It may object to this Bill, but it is much more difficult to be uninhibited in criticism if one has the commitment to devolution around one's neck.

Mr. Brittan: But does not the Minister recognise that we have no inhibitions whatsoever in attacking this ill-conceived, ill-argued and ill-thought-out Bill? It is an indication of the profound disquiet of the Government that when the going gets rough they talk about the policies of other parties.

Mr. Smith: I think that the Committee has spent more time talking about Labour Party politics than the policies of any other party—

Mr. Brittan: It is your Bill.

Mr. Smith: I do not object on that score, but I notice how touchy are the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends when this subject is raised. It is therefore perhaps wise to remember the Conservative Party's position.
I should not be criticising the hon. Gentleman, however, because he did a good demolition job, particularly in the latter part of his speech, on the arguments put forward by some of his hon. Friends. They are looking disapprovingly at me about that, and I am sorry

if I happen to agree with some of the propositions advanced by the hon. Member.
It would be difficult to ask people in England, Scotland and Wales all to vote on the propositions for devolution in Scotland and Wales. It would mean, for example, that people in Scotland would have to cast a vote on Welsh devolution, and the people in Wales would have to vote on the Scottish proposals. The majority of people—and I certainly believe this in respect of the electorate in Scotland—would feel, for example, that Welsh devolution was something about which one should ask the Welsh, not the Scots.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Does not my hon. Friend accept that Scottish devolution is of supreme importance to the people of England and Wales because ultimately the aim of the Scottish National Party is to take British oil away from the British people, and that very much affects the people of Wales?

Mr. Smith: The subject of oil does not come into this matter. My hon. Friend is talking about a situation in which Scotland would have complete independence. I fundamentally disagree with that proposition. The proposals for a devolved Assembly are quite different from separation and the breaking up of the United Kingdom.
What do the people of England think? We are told by the hon. Member for Reigate that there is burning resentment that a bitter backlash of resentment is being created. However, I hear from other hon. Members representing English constituencies that this is not the position. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) says that he does not find much interest in his constituency in the subject. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) says that he has received about 100 letters on the subject. I suspect that maybe the hon. Member attracts more letters than do other hon. Members, but certainly his experience seems different from that of other hon. Members.
The most important matter to bear in mind is that the people of England, through their elected representatives in this House, will decide whether the Bill passes. The matter will be put to a referendum only in the event that the Bill


gets through both Houses of Parliament. There are 516 English Members of Parliament, and their voices will be decisive.
The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) drew attention to the White Paper. The Government said that devolution was a matter of concern to the whole of the United Kingdom—

Mr. Raison: The Minister claims that I said that the White Paper describes this as a matter of concern to the whole of the United Kingdom. It actually says:
The issues are extremely important for all the people of the United Kingdom".
Why should not all the people of the United Kingdom have the chance to vote in the referendum?

Mr. Smith: The hon. Member must allow me to answer the points he raises. He asked his questions very stridently and then interrupts me before I can start to answer them. Of course, that is so. That is why it is being considered by this Parliament, with hon. Members representing English constituencies taking a proper and close interest in the provisions of the Bill as it goes through the House of Commons. That is how the concern of the whole of the United Kingdom is reflected. But hon. Members have said from time to time that there should be a test of opinion in Scotland and Wales as the parts most directly affected by our proposals, and that Parliament ought to feel that there should be a test of opinion in both those countries.
I reject the proposition that the people of England do not have a say in this matter. They have a very full say. Indeed, they have the predominant say in this Parliament.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: The Minister is correct to emphasise the important rôle which hon. Members from English constituencies will exercise in this matter. Since that rôle is so important and since he apparently believes in referendums, why does the Minister propose to deny to English Members the guidance which they could obtain from a referendum addressed to the English people?

Mr. Smith: For two reasons. First, the electorates in Scotland and Wales are the electorates in those parts of the United Kingdom most directly affected

by the proposals. [HON. MEMBERS: "We are all affected."] There are no proposals for devolution to England in the Bill. The proposals are for devolution to Scotland and Wales. Second, we should be in danger of getting into a very difficult political situation, as the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby stated so clearly and persuasively, if there were different results in such a referendum from different parts of the United Kingdom. If that happened, one would be in a quite difficult situation, and I believe that both in terms of principle—the principle being that we should ask the people most directly affected—and in terms of practicality, the referendum which we propose will give an answer which will tell Parliament what those people want and will guide the House of Commons when it eventually decides whether to put the schemes into effect.

Mr. George Gardiner: If there is a view in England differing from that in Scotland, and if the majority view in England is against this legislation, will the Minister say that it is better that we should not know about it and the whole thing should be suppressed? Why does he not agree with us that we ought to have that information before us?

Mr. Smith: The views of the people of England will be adequately expressed by their Members of Parliament here. The people most directly affected by the provisions which the Bill will implement are those who live in Scotland and Wales. Therefore, we ask them for their opinion in a referendum.

Sir Bernard Braine: The hon. Gentleman is quite properly laying emphasis at this point in his argument upon the importance of the parliamentary vote on the Bill. He is laying great stress on the importance of English Members being able to express their own views and the views of their constituents. If that be so, can he give the House an assurance that, when it comes to the crunch, right hon. and hon. Members on his side of the House representing English constituencies will be free to vote in accordance with their conscience?

Mr. Smith: It may have escaped the hon. Gentleman's attention that that has been happening from time to time during


our proceedings on the Bill thus far. No one is more acutely conscious of that fact than my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench and myself.

Mr. Channon: The Minister said that at the end of the day English Members will have the crucial say because there are more than 500 of us and so on. What parliamentary process will there be under which English Members will have that say after the referendum is completed?

Mr. Smith: The Government's proposals will be put on the Order Paper, but in general terms it is envisaged that there will be a provision whereby Parliament has a vote. The Government put the proposition to the House and the House votes on it. I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree, however, that that is slightly outwith the terms of what we are discussing now, which is whether we extend the referendum to England and Northern Ireland instead of confining it to Scotland and Wales.
A great deal of concern—

Mr. Peter Rees: Will the Minister give way on that very point?

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Smith: I am not giving way to the hon. and learned Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees). I must get on with this argument—

Mr. Peter Rees: Give way.

Division No. 74.]
AYES
[10.16 p.m..


Beith, A. J.
Hunt, John (Bromley)
Raison, Timothy


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rathbone, Tim


Brotherton, Michael
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Carlisle, Mark
Jopling, Michael
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Channon, Paul
Knight, Mrs Jill
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Lawrence, Ivan
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Cope, John
McCusker, H.
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Cormack, Patrick
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Sainsbury, Tim


Dalyell, Tam
Marten, Neil
Shepherd, Colin


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Sims, Roger


Emery, Peter
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Eyre, Reginald
Molyneaux, James
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Montgomery, Fergus
Stanbrook, Ivor


Fox, Marcus
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Freud, Clement
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Tebbit, Norman


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Glyn, Dr Alan
Mudd, David
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Goodhew, Victor
Nelson, Anthony
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Normanton, Tom
Winterton, Nicholas


Griffiths, Eldon
Page, John (Harrow West)



Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Grylls, Michael
Pardoe, John
Mr. W. Benyon and


Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Penhaligon, David
Mr. Tim Renton.


Hooson, Emlyn
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch



Howell, David (Guildford)
Price, David (Eastleigh)

Mr. Smith: Throughout this debate, hon. Members—

Mr. Peter Rees: Mr. Peter Rees rose—

The First Deputy Chairman (Sir Myer Galpern): The hon. and learned Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees) knows full well that if the Minister does not give way, he does not give way.

Mr. Smith: Throughout the debate a great deal of stress has rightly been placed on the importance of retaining the unity of the United Kingdom. That is a fundamental factor behind the proposals in the Bill. We believe that the schemes for devolution will allow us more efficient, more sensitive and more representative government in Scotland and in Wales and still strengthen the United Kingdom rather than lead to its break-up.
I ask those right hon. and hon. Members who affect to speak for the unity of the United Kingdom to consider the realities of the proposition in the amendment. Constructing such a referendum as the hon. Member for Reigate suggests would do more in practical terms to affect the unity of the United Kingdom than any other proposition. That is why I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will reject the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 69, Noes 249.

NOES


Abse, Leo
Forrester, John
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Allaun, Frank
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Moyle, Roland


Anderson, Donald
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Archer, Peter
Freeson, Reginald
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Armstrong, Ernest
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Newens, Stanley


Ashton, Joe
George, Bruce
Noble, Mike


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Gilbert, Dr John
Oakes, Gordon


Atkinson, Norman
Ginsburg, David
Ogden, Eric


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Golding, John
O'Halloran, Michael


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Gould, Bryan
Orbach, Maurice


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Gourlay, Harry
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Bates, Alt
Graham, Ted
Ovenden, John


Bean, R. E.
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Palmer, Arthur


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Grant, John (Islington C)
Park, George


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Grocott, Bruce
Parker, John


Bidwell, Sydney
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Parry, Robert


Bishop, E. S.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Pavitt, Laurie


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Pendry, Tom


Boardman, H.
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Prescott, John


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Heffer, Eric S.
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Henderson, Douglas
Price, William (Rugby)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hooley, Frank
Radice, Giles


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Horam, John
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Reid, George


Buchan, Norman
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Buchanan, Richard
Huckfield, Les
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Roderick, Caerwyn


Campbell, Ian
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Canavan, Dennis
Hunter, Adam
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Cant, R. B.
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Rooker, J. W.


Carmichael, Neil
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Roper, John


Carter, Ray
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Sedgemore, Brian


Cartwright, John
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Clemitson, Ivor
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael
John, Brynmor
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Cohen, Stanley
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Coleman, Donald
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Sillars, James


Conlan, Bernard
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Silverman, Julius


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Judd, Frank
Skinner, Dennis


Corbett, Robin
Kaufman, Gerald
Small, William


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Lamble, David
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Lamborn, Harry
Snape, Peter


Crawford, Douglas
Lamond, James
Spearing, Nigel


Cronin, John
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Spriggs, Leslie


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Stallard, A. W.


Cryer, Bob
Litterick, Tom
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Loyden, Eddie
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Davidson, Arthur
Luard, Evan
Stoddart, David


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Stott, Roger


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Strang, Gavin


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
McCartney, Hugh
Swain, Thomas


Deakins, Eric
MacCormick, Iain
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
McElhone, Frank
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Dempsey, James
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Doig, Peter
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Thompson, George


Dormand, J. D.
MacKenzie, Gregor
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Maclennan, Robert
Tierney, Sydney


Duffy, A. E. P.
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Tomlinson, John


Dunnett, Jack
McNamara, Kevin
Torney, Tom


Eadie, Alex
Madden, Max
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Edge, Geoff
Magee, Bryan
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Mahon, Simon
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Ward, Michael


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Marks, Kenneth
Watkins, David


English, Michael
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Watt, Hamish


Ennals, David
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Weetch, Ken


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Wellbeloved, James


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Meacher, Michael
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Evans, John (Newton)
Mendelson, John
White, James (Pollok)


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Mikardo, Ian
Whitlock, William


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Wigley, Dafydd


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Flannery, Martin
Molloy, William
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Ford, Ben









Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Wise, Mrs Audrey
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)
Woof, Robert
Mr. James Tinn and


Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)
Wrigglesworth, Ian
Mrs. Ann Taylor.


Wilson, William (Coventry SE)
Young, David (Bolton E)

Question accordingly negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

The First Deputy Chairman: The Question is,
That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
As many as are of that opinion say "Aye".

Hon. Members: Aye.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Brittan: I rise merely to express briefly our surprise that in a series of important debates—[interruption.]

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. we shall finish quicker if we allow the hon. Gentleman to say a few words.

Mr. Brittan: I shall certainly be happy to wait until hon. Members are prepared to listen.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: On a point of order, Sir Myer—[interruption.]

The First Deputy Chairman: I did not hear the hon. Gentleman's point of order. Would he mind repeating it?

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I am sorry that you did not hear me because of the noise, Sir Myer. Is it not the case that a Division has been called on the motion by the Government Whip to report Progress?

The First Deputy Chairman: The motion is debateable.

Mr. Douglas Crawford: On a point of order, Sir Myer. I distinctly heard you call a Division on whether the Committee should report Progress and I distinctly heard my hon. Friends say "No" to that. I ask that the Question be put to the House again.

10.30 p.m.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I can assure hon. Members that I know exactly what was moved and that the motion is debatable. An hon. Member cannot know in advance what I am going to propose. He can only rise to take part in a debate once I have proposed the Question.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: On a point of order, Sir Myer. It was absolutely clear that the Chair had put to the House "Those in favour" and "Those against".

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I can assure hon. Members that I am compos mentis and I know exactly what I did. I started to propose the Question that I should report Progress but before I completed putting it the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) rose, and he is in order.

Mr. Brittan: I am sorry that hon. Members of the Scottish National Party should be in such a hurry to go home, but I can assure them that I shall not detain them long. I find it surprising that at this early hour, in the middle of a series of debates on the referendum, the Government have put forward this motion and that they should think it necessary to report Progress. There is no reason for that. I merely wish to put it on record that my hon. Friends and I are prefectly prepared and ready to continue the debate for as long as necessary on these important matters. We want to make it clear that the reason why the Committee is rising early is that the Government do not have the stomach to hear the rest of the arguments.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I should like to add my protests at the curtailment of debate at this relatively early hour. It has been the custom of at least some of us to debate the points arising out of the Bill and the new clause with great sincerity for long periods. There are many hon. Members now present who have taken little part in the debates, but that does not mean that those of us who have been trying to take the matter of the future of the United Kingdom seriously should not be able to continue to debate these serious questions in the way that most of us have tried to do—with the exception of the SNP Members, who, of course, are not interested in the future of the United Kingdom, provided that they can separate themselves from it.
We have been debating the details of a clause introducing a referendum, but


by the motion of the Government Whip the debate is about to be curtailed. I fear that this may be a prelude to an attempt to curtail our debates even more ruthlessly in the future.
I should like an assurance from the Government that if they intend to curtail our debates on the details of the referendums, who is to vote in them, how they are to be conducted and what are to be their terms, we shall have more time to consider the final form of the new clause. I trust that the Government will accept that they cannot have it both ways.
The Government cannot expect us to accept with complacency a reduction of time in Committee without our being given more time than usual on Report to debate the new clause. I hope that we can have an assurance that this cavalier treatment of the Committee will not be extended into a wider field.

Mr. David Steel: I have an obvious interest to declare in opposing the motion to report Progress, because the next amendment for discussion is in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself. We were given no indication that the debate was to be curtailed. I do not want to indulge in synthetic indignation. My views on late sittings are well known; I am against them. However, I think that we could at least start the next series of amendments and go on until about midnight.
When we debated the procedural motion relating to the referendum clause, we were given to understand that the Leader of the House thought it appropriate that we should spend two days on the matter—one day on a general debate and one on amendments. We are already running seriously behind schedule on that, and I should have thought that the Government would be willing at least to make a start on the next amendment. I do not think we should let them get away with ending the debate at about 10.30 p.m.

Mr. Channon: I support the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel). The next amendment is extremely important, and at this

comparatively early hour there are some hon. Members who have been here all day who still wish to catch your eye, Sir Myer. There are still some important points to be made, and I see no reason why the debate should not go on a little longer.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I must correct the hon. Gentleman. Every hon. Member who wished to take part in the last debate was able to do so.

Mr. Channon: I was talking about the next amendment, Sir Myer. We are continually being told by the Government that we are short of time and that the debate is taking too long, yet we are now being asked to pack up at this early hour. We could easily take the next amendment, which is so important, or at least make a start on it.

Mr. Buchan: I also have a strong vested interest in the next amendment, because I have been working towards it for the past two or three years. I want it discussed at a time when the House of Commons is alert. More important, however, the Government, by moving to report Progress, will give themselves an opportunity to rethink their attitude towards the question of independence. I assume that that is why they have moved to report Progress, and I thoroughly approve the motion.

Mr. Budgen: I agree that we should oppose the Government's suggestion that the debate should end at this stage. The Liberal amendment gives rise to important questions about the effect of changing the referendum and many hon. Members wish to advance arguments on the amendment, having been excluded from advancing fairly similar arguments about earlier amendments.
The night is yet young. Many hon. Members feel passionately about the amendment and the principle of a referendum. Many hon. Members have sat through many hours of the debate, and it is a denial of our right to represent our constituents if we are excluded from discussing this matter. Government supporters prefer to go to bed than to hear the arguments on the issue. These are serious matters. We wish to continue because we are determined to defeat the Bill. [interruption.]

Mr. Tim Renton: Mr. Tim Renton (Mid-Sussex) rose—

The First Deputy Chairman: The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) is too lively. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) has not finished.

Mr. Budgen: Thank you, Sir Myer. By their craven attitude tonight, the Government are saying that they have no heart in the Bill.

Mr. Tim Renton: Liveliness does not apply to those on the Government Benches tonight. They jeer at my hon. Friend's remarks, but what did the Minister say when winding up the previous debate? To protest that the English would not have a right to vote in a referendum, he said that English hon. Members would have plenty of chances to speak in the debate. Only minutes later the Government moved to report Progess.
The night is young. I was here for a large part of the previous debate.

Mr. David Stoddart (Lord Commissioner of the Treasury): The hon. Gentleman was not here.

Hon. Members: Yes he was.

Mr. Renton: If the hon. Member had been here himself, he would have known that I was here during another part of the debate. I did not seek to speak because arguments were being made well by my hon. Friends and by hon. Members opposite.
I do not wish to prolong the proceedings, but I wish to speak on the next amendment. [HON. MEMBERS: "So do we."] It is intolerable that proceedings should be cut short at this early hour. If this is a prologue to the introduction of the guillotine tomorrow—as I suspect it is—the Minister must take back his word that we would have every chance to discuss the Bill. We should continue.

The First Deputy Chairman: Mr. Ridley. Mr. Ridley.

Mr. Ridley: Mr. Ridley rose—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Unlike the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex, the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) is not so lively on his feet.

Mr. Ridley: The pursuit of self-interest has led the Committee to its present position. The Government introduced the Bill because they thought that they could secure for themselves the advantage of a certain vote in Scotland which was challenged by certain hon. Members. When they found that that ambition was in trouble, they denied the House proper representation of Scottish and Welsh hon. Members. The whole exercise that we have been witnessing has been a desire to maintain an electoral superiority based not on democracy—

Mr. Stoddart: It has nothing to do with democracy.

Mr. Ridley: It has a lot to do with democracy. Behind the operation lies a desire so to rig the democratic system that the Government party remains in power whatever might be the wish of the people of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It has been an exercise in trying so to rig the electoral situation that the party in control of our affairs, which has been elected by only 38 per cent. of the electorate, remains able to dictate to the country what it wants to do. It has been said by the Leader of the House—

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: This is ridiculous.

Mr. Ridley: No, it is not. The Leader of the House has made it clear that he is not prepared to consider the representation of Scotland and Wales in the House of Commons. He is concerned only to ensure that he can secure the votes in Scotland and Wales that are essential to the continuation of the Government.

The First Deputy Chairman: I remind the hon. Gentleman, as I am sure he well knows, that the debate is limited strictly to the Question that I report Progress.

Mr. Ridley: With due respect, Sir Myer, my remarks are extremely relevant. The reason why the Government want to report Progress is that they have come to the point when the next expedient is about to be produced, which is to curtail debate in the House of Commons.

The First Deputy Chairman: The next proceeding would be to call the amendment that stands in the name of the Leader of the Liberal Party.

Mr. Ridley: But that is not what has happened, Sir Myer. The Government have moved to report Progress because they have decided in their cynical manoeuvrings that the only way in which they can proceed from now on is to introduce a guillotine motion next week. They take the view that there is no point in discussing the next amendment. The Leader of the Liberal Party knows full well that the Government do not care a fig for his amendment. They do not care a fig for his views. They do not care about the bargain he has been trying to make about separate taxation.
Let us consider the public bargaining that has been taking place outside the Committee. The Leader of the House has been playing hard to get, as has the Leader of the Liberal Party. The Leader of the House knows that he needs the votes of the Liberal Party to secure the passage of the timetable motion, and the Leader of the Liberal Party has stated his conditions. The right hon. Gentleman's first condition is that there shall be proportional representation. That has been shot down by the Government. It has been denied and refused. The right hon. Gentleman's second condition is that there shall be reduced representation of the Labour Party in Scotland and Wales in the House of Commons. The Leader of the House has denied that with all the fury at his command. The right hon. Gentleman's third condition is that there shall be separate taxation powers for the Scottish Assembly, and that has been denied.

The First Deputy Chairman: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to have regard to what we are discussing.

Mr. Ridley: I am trying to set out the whole horrible manoeuvre in relation to the Liberal Party. The motion which has been moved is to report Progress. That course has been taken because no bargain has been made with the Liberal Party and no bargain has been secured with any Member in the House of Commons.
The Government have despaired of carrying the Bill. It is the final admission of failure and defeat. This sordid manoeuvre, this whole smelling, degrading, disgusting manoeuvre that has been carried out by the Government, has finally come to the point where they can no

longer continue with it themselves, where they have lost faith in their own sordid enterprise. The significance of the motion to report Progress is not that the Committee is tired and does not wish to continue the debate. It is that a crisis of confidence has arisen in the ranks of the Labour Party because the Government have failed to secure the compliance of the Liberal Party to support them in their timetable motion. They have failed to secure the compliance of their own dissidents, if I might coin a phrase from alien parts of the country.
The Government are reduced to the point of having to put the issue to the test. We are on the eve of a political crisis. We are on the eve of a situation in which the Government will no longer be able to proceed with their commitment on the Bill. This is a moment of great seriousness and importance.
I believe that it is right for my hon. Friends to proceed to debate the Bill. The next amendment should be taken, because there is no point in stopping debating the Bill simply because the Government have thrown in the sponge and given up their resolve to proceed with the Bill, knowing full well that basically they do not have support in the House, in the country, or anywhere else in the world for this mad, cynical manoeuvre on which they embarked in the hope of securing electoral advantage.
I shall vote against the motion.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Sir Myer. Is it not deeply wrong of the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) to suggest that my right hon. Friend could be thinking of bringing in a guillotine motion? Did not the Lord President, on 2nd May 1972, refer to the guillotine as
full-hearted contempt for the democratic processes of this country; full-hearted contempt for the normal legislative processes of this House of Commons."—[Official Report 2nd May 1972; Vol. 886, c. 235.]
How can he be thinking of bringing in a guillotine?

The First Deputy Chairman: I do not know why hon. Members are so hilarious at this time of night. That is not a point of order.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Mr. Deputy Speaker—no, Sir Myer, Sir Myer,


Sir Myer. [Laughter.] I am not sure what this is all about. The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) behaved in his normal, emollient way. He was gentle, understanding, reasonable and everything else. If we are talking about being reasonable, why are we about to give up at five minutes to 11? Labour Members are lively, intelligent, physically fit and, to judge from their responses, still awake. [interruption.]
What I do not understand—and it is clear, Sir Myer, that you find it difficult to concentrate on these matters—is why the Committee is to be denied the opportunity to debate these matters which the Lord President believes are of deep concern to us, as, indeed, they are.
Sir Myer, I appreciate—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Sir Myer. With great respect, I notice that the Chair has been very occupied in the last three or four minutes. Were you listening to the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) to see whether he was in order? In the last three minutes I doubt whether you were in a position to judge whether he was in order.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I am sure that the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) will probably repeat himself, and then I can rule on it.

Mr. Johnston: Sir Myer. [Laughter.] Sir Myer. [Laughter.] Sir Myer. [Laughter.]

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. If the hon. Gentleman is going to continue that way, I shall have to accuse him of tedious repetition.

Mr. Johnston: Sir Myer—[Laughter.]

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. We have had a bit of hilarity, but I think that there is no sense in wasting time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Just a moment. If the hon. Member for Inverness has nothing to contribute, I ask him to resume his seat.

Mr. Johnston: Sir Myer, it is not that I have nothing to contribute, and certainly I would not regard the repetition of your name as tedious. My argument

to the Committee, which is getting into a hysterically frivolous state, is that we Liberals do not understand why this motion has been moved. There is a very long way to go with the Bill, and it is rather stupid, Sir Myer, to spend our time debating these frivolities when we on the Liberal Bench wish to make progress with the Bill and to deal with the serious matters it contains. Therefore, we are disposed to oppose the motion.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) has put the case of the Liberal Party so formidably that I am almost tempted to agree with his proposition. I cannot help feeling that if I were to do so no one would be more distressed than the other upstanding members of the Liberal Party, if there are indeed such at this hour. But I am sorely tempted by the eloquence of the hon. Gentleman and by the proposition of the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) not to proceed with the motion and to accept that we should continue with the debate. I certainly weigh most carefully what they have said.
I also have to take into account that never in the whole record of this Parliament at least—and probbaly some previous Parliaments as well—have so many Liberal Members been assembled so late at night. It would be imposing a severe hardship on them if I detained them any longer. I fear that I therefore have to reject the claim that was made by the Liberal Party.
The appeal by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) was one of the most powerful speeches I have heard from the hon. Gentleman for many years. I was very much persuaded by the hon. Gentleman to consider whether we should change our minds, but then I recalled that the hon. Gentleman was hardly here during the previous proceedings. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman cannot be aware of what happened in the House yesterday. I am not saying that there was some curtailment of the previous debate. Of course, that was not the situation. The situation with regard to the previous debate was that no closure motion was moved. Therefore, the hon. Member who suggested that as a reason why we should


continue was suffering from a misapprehension. I do not believe that the Committee should pay regard to what was said by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury on this occasion because the hon. Gentleman has not been aware of the debates that we have had.
The matters that we are proposing to debate will be debated. My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) rightly said that one of the later debates dealing with the second question is of great importance. It has been debated outside the House, and some of my hon. Friends have discussed it in the House on a number of occasions. Of course, that question is one that should properly be debated by the Committee.
I myself have no special objection to debates at a late hour. Very often that is necessary. I do not accept the orthodox view of the modern Liberal Party that we should never have such debates at late hours. Sometimes it is necessary for the House to sit late. But it is also necessary to take into account the general state of the Bill and the general discussions that we have had. We must also take yesterday's events into account.
My hon. Friends, who have been diligent in their application to their parlimentary labours, have every right to look forward to an early night on some occasions during the week, and this would be a very good night for it, particularly since the thumping majority that we had on the last vote seems to indicate that opposition is abating.
Though not for any of the mysterious and sinister reasons that some hon. Members have hinted at, and despite the eloquent things said on behalf of the Liberal Party—and the novelty of seeing Liberal Members attend our proceedings at such a late hour—I believe that it would be much better for the Committee to come to a conclusion. If we continued in the same vein as some of the contributions that have been made, I do not believe that it would contribute to the best understanding of our debates.
For all those reasons, I hope that the Committee will be prepared to accept the motion and that we shall come back on some future occasion and proceed with

the extremely important next amendment that has to be taken.

Mr. Brittan: The reasons given by the Leader of the House for wishing to report Progress have been frivolous and inadequate. The right hon. Gentleman started by engaging in a wholly unjustified tirade of abuse of the Liberal Party, for which there were no grounds whatsoever. He then referred to the fact that there had been no curtailment of the previous debate when he knew perfectly well that our objection was not to any curtailment of that debate but to the fact that he does not wish to engage in the next debate. The right hon. Gentleman said that the next amendment was of great importance, and he ignored the fact that on three occasions he had been quite happy for the Committee to debate matters of great importance through the night.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I appreciate what my hon. Friend is saying. Will he remind the right hon. Gentleman, however, that in referring to the smallness of the vote by any party or section within the Committee he was in grave dereliction of his duty as Leader of the whole House in suggesting that, because a large number of hon. Members did not support an amendment in the Lobby, argument should not be heard?

Mr. Brittan: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. Such derelictions of duty have become so commonplace that it becomes tedious to refer to them on every occasion on which they occur.
The real explanation was given in the right hon. Gentleman's ominous reference to the "general state of the Bill". The Bill has been argued into shreds. We want to continue that process. We want to argue it into tatters, and we are prepared to do it tonight. It is for that reason that I advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to oppose the motion to report Progress.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Mr. Gordon Wilson rose—

Mr. Walter Harrison (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household): Mr. Walter Harrison (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household) rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The Committee proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Gordon Wilson: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Sir Myer. I had the impression, in the hubbub of the Committee, that your ruling was that the motion to report Progress was debatable. The Division was called by a Member from the Scottish National Party, but you have not accepted a spokesman for that party to speak in the debate. Therefore, as the motion is debatable, I ask that it be debated and that you call a Member from the Scottish National Party, otherwise the viewpoint of this party in relation to this important Division will not be heard.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. It is for the Chair to decide which motions it accepts and which it rejects.

Mr. Wigley: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Sir Meyer. This is the most blatant example of bias on the part of the Chair.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I call upon the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) to withdraw that insult to the Chair. I ask him to withdraw that insult.

Mr. Wigley: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Sir Myer. I request that you call a speaker from this Bench on this point.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Go on Chair, get on with it.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Sir Myer. There was been no response from you to requests to call a Member from the Scottish National Party to speak on this motion.

The First Deputy Chairman: Whether to accept a motion for the closure is entirely for the Chair. Who is called is equally a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: (seated and covered): Further to that point of order, Sir Myer. I understand that there have been requests that Mr. Speaker should be called. There has been no response from you to that request. What response will you give?

The First Deputy Chairman: I believe that the hon. Member is making legitimate points of order. But, as he knows, we are in Committee and, therefore, the

occupant of the Chair is the individual in complete control, and I propose to discharge my duty in that direction.

Mr. Johnathan Aitken: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Sir Myer. During the exchanges, hon. Members on these Benches distinctly heard the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) and the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson), when seated and covered, say that the Chair was biased in its ruling. Are you prepared, in the discharge of your duties, which you are following punctiliously, to name those hon. Members who have abused the Chair in this way?

The First Deputy Chairman: I propose at this late hour to have a peaceful ending to the evening. I called upon the hon. Member to withdraw his remark. I hope that he is prepared to comply with that.

Mr. Aitken: (seated and covered): Further to that point of order, Sir Myer. There is no indication yet that the hon. Members concerned are prepared to withdraw their assertion that the Chair is biased.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: (seated and covered): The Chair is biased.

Mr. Douglas Henderson: (seated and covered): We will not withdraw. You are biased.

Hon. Members: Name them, name them.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: (seated and covered): Get Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Aitken: (seated and covered): Further to that point of order, Sir Myer. This is a serious matter, and the honour of the Chair is at stake—

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: (seated and covered): Hear, hear. It certainly is.

Mr. Aitken: (seated and covered): At least 50 hon. Members in the Committee heard the hon. Member for Caernavon and the hon. Member for Dundee, East say in quite unequivocal terms that the Chair was biased. In some ways they made other observations, Sir Myer, to which I shall not draw your attention. They said clearly, however, that the Chair was biased.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Hear, hear.

Mr. Aitken: (seated and covered): The honour of the Chair is at stake.

Mr. Henderson: (seated and covered): Bring Mr. Speaker.

Division No. 75.]
AYES
[11.7 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Allaun, Frank
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Anderson, Donald
Ford, Ben
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Archer, Peter
Forrester, John
Moyle, Roland


Armstrong, Ernest
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Ashton, Joe
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Freeson, Reginald
Newens, Stanley


Atkinson, Norman
Freud, Clement
Noble, Mike


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Oakes, Gordon


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
George, Bruce
Ogden, Eric


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Gilbert, Dr John
O'Halloran, Michael


Bates, Alf
Ginsburg, David
Orbach, Maurice


Bean, R. E.
Golding, John
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Beith, A. J.
Gould, Bryan
Ovenden, John


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Gourlay, Harry
Palmer, Arthur


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Graham, Ted
Pardoe, John


Bidwell, Sydney
Grant, John (Islington C)
Park, George


Bishop, E. S.
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Parry, Robert


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Grocott, Bruce
Pavitt, Laurie


Boardman, H.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Pendry, Tom


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Prescott, John


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Heffer, Eric S.
Price, William (Rugby)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Hooley, Frank
Radice, Giles


Buchan, Norman
Horam, John
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Buchanan, Richard
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Huckfield, Les
Robinson, Geoffrey


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Hunter, Adam
Roderick, Caerwyn


Campbell, Ian
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Canavan, Dennis
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Cant, R. B.
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Rooker, J. W.


Carmichael, Neil
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Roper, John


Carter, Ray
John, Brynmor
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Cartwright, John
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Sedgemore, Brian


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Clemitson, Ivor
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael
Judd, Frank
Sillars, James


Cohen, Stanley
Kaufman, Gerald
Silverman, Julius


Coleman, Donald
Lambie, David
Skinner, Dennis


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Lamborn, Harry
Small, William


Corbett, Robin
Lamond, James
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Snape, Peter


Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Spearing, Nigel


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Spriggs, Leslie


Cryer, Bob
Litterick, Tom
Steel, Rt Hon David


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Loyden, Eddie
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Dalyell, Tam
Luard, Evan
Stoddart, David


Davidson, Arthur
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Stott, Roger


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Strang, Gavin


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
McCartney, Hugh
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Swain, Thomas


Deakins, Eric
McElhone, Frank
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Dempsey, James
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Doig, Peter
MacKenzie, Gregor
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Dormand, J. D.
Maclennan, Robert
Tierney, Sydney


Duffy, A. E. P.
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Tinn, James


Dunnett, Jack
McNamara, Kevin
Tomlinson, John


Eadie, Alex
Madden, Max
Torney, Tom


Edge, Geoff
Magee, Bryan
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Mahon, Simon
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Marks, Kenneth
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


English, Michael
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Ward, Michael


Ennals, David
Meacher, Michael
Watkins, David


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Mendelson, John
Weetch, Ken


Evans, John (Newton)
Mikardo, Ian
Wellbeloved, James


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
White, James (Pollok)


Flannery, Martin
Molloy, William
Whitlock, William

The First Deputy Chairman: I shall take all the points of order after the Division is finished.

The Committee having divided: Ayes 223, Noes 60.

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)



Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)
Wise, Mrs Audrey
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)
Woof, Robert
Mr. A. W. Stallard and


Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Wrigglesworth, Ian
Mr. Thomas Cox.


Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)
Young, David (Bolton E)





NOES


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Hooson, Emlyn
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Benyon, W.
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Reid, George


Britten, Leon
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Brotherton, Michael
Knight, Mrs Jill
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Budgen, Nick
Le Marchant, Spencer
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Channon, Paul
McCusker, H.
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Cormack, Patrick
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Shepherd, Colin


Corrie, John
Marten, Neil
Stanbrook, Ivor


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stradling Thomas, J.


Durant, Tony
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Molyneaux, James
Tebbit, Norman


Eyre, Reginald
Montgomery, Fergus
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Watt, Hamish


Forman, Nigel
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Winterton, Nicholas


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)



Glyn, Dr Alan
Mudd, David
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Penhaligon, David
Mr. Anthony Berry and


Grist, Ian
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Mr. Jim Lester.


Grylls, Michael
Price, David (Eastleigh)



Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Raison, Timothy

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put accordingly,

That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again:—

The Committee proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Aitken: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Sir Myer. I seek your guidance on this highly important matter. I heard beyond any possible doubt words spoken by a number of hon. Members on the nationalist Benches—who may well have been over-excited and over-tired—saying that the Chair was biased in giving its ruling. Her Majesty's Opposition have no wish in any way to question your rulings and your judgment in this matter this evening. Sir Myer, but there is no doubt that members of the nationalist parties—the hon. Members for Caernavon (Mr. Wigley), Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) and Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) and others—said that the Chair was biased. They were then asked by you to withdraw those remarks. They reaffirmed their statement that the Chair was biased.
I repeat, Sir Myer, that the honour of the Chair and the honour of the House is at stake. I ask you now formally to name those hon. Members who have broken the conventions, traditions and precedents of the House.

The First Deputy Chairman: May we leave this matter until we have—[HON. MEMBERS: "No. Rule now."] Order. I have to put the Question again according to the Standing Order when the red light shows here on the clock, as it will any second now. Let us just wait until then. [HON. MEMBERS. "No."] Order. Just a moment. This is the result of late sittings. I ask the hon. Member whether he is prepared to withdraw. I appeal to him.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: (seated and covered): Further to that point of order, Sir Myer. The situation which arose is obviously very serious, and my hon. Friends and I understand that the appropriate procedure when complaints have arisen about the conduct of the Chair is that a motion is put down for the attention of the House so that the House itself can take an opportunity to judge whether the conduct of the Chair was biased or not. My hon. Friends and I are quite happy to rest our case on the facts as stated and on the judgment of the House as a whole. We have therefore tabled a motion of no confidence, and in the circumstances we are prepared to withdraw the allegations which have been made.

The First Deputy Chairman: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman.

The Committee having divided: Ayes 215, Noes 80.

Division No. 76.]
AYES
[11.19 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Ford, Ben
Noble, Mike


Allaun, Frank
Forrester, John
Oakes, Gordon


Anderson, Donald
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Ogden, Eric


Archer, Peter
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd')
O'Halloran, Michael


Armstrong, Ernest
Freeson, Reginald
Orbach, Maurice


Ashton, Joe
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
George, Bruce
Ovenden, John


Atkinson, Norman
Gilbert, Dr John
Palmer, Arthur


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Ginsburg, David
Park, George


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Golding, John
Parry, Robert


Barnett, Ht Hon Joel (Heywood)
Gould, Bryan
Pavitt, Laurie


Bates, Alf
Gourlay, Harry
Pendry, Tom


Bean, R. E.
Graham, Ted
Prescott, John


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Grant, John (Islington C)
price, C. (Lewisham W)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Grocott, Bruce
Price, William (Rugby)


Bidwell, Sydney
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Radice, Giles


Bishop, E. S.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Rees, Rt Hcn Merlyn (Leeds S)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Boardman, H.
Heffer, Eric S.
Robinson, Geoffrey


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Hooley, Frank
Roderick, Caerwyn


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Horam, John
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Huckfield, Les
Rooker, J. W.


Buchan, Norman
Hunter, Adam
Roper, John


Buchanan, Richard
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Sedgemore, Brian


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Campbell, Ian
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Canavan, Dennis
John, Brynmor
Sillars, James


Cant, R. B.
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Silverman, Julius


Carmichael, Neil
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Skinner, Dennis


Carter, Ray
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Small, William


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Judd, Frank
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Cartwright, John
Kaufman, Gerald
Spearing, Nigel


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Lambie, David
Spriggs, Leslie


Clemitson, Ivor
Lamborn, Harry
Stallard, A. W.


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael
Lamond, James
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Cohen, Stanley
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Stoddart, David


Coleman, Donald
Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Stott, Roger


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Strang, Gavin


Corbett, Robin
Litterick, Tom
Summerskiil, Hon Dr Shirley


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Loyden, Eddie
Swain, Thomas


Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Luard, Evan
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Cryer, Bob
McCartney, Hugh
Tierney, Sydney


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Tinn, James


Dalyell, Tam
McElhone, Frank
Tomlinson, John


Davidson, Arthur
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Torney, Tom


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Maclennan, Robert
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Deakins, Eric
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow)
Ward, Michael


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
McNamara, Kevin
Watkins, David


Dempsey, James
Madden, Max
Weetch, Ken


Doig, Peter
Magee, Bryan
Wellbeloved, James


Dormand, J. D.
Mahon, Simon
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
While, James (Pollok)


Dunnett, Jack
Marks, Kenneth
Whitlock, William


Eadie, Alex
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Edge, Geoff
Meacher, Michael
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Mendelson, John
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Mikardo, Ian
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


English, Michael
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Ennals, David
Molloy, William
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Woof, Robert


Evans, John (Newton)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Moyle, Roland



Flannery, Martin
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Mr. Peter Snape and


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Newens, Stanley
Mrs. Ann Taylor.







NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Rathbone, Tim


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Grist, Ian
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Reid, George


Beith, A. J.
Henderson, Douglas
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Benyon, W.
Hooson, Emlyn
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Brittan, Leon
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Brotherton, Michael
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Budgen, Nick
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Channon, Paul
Knight, Mrs Jill
Shepherd, Colin


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
MacCormick, Iain
Skeet, T. H. H.


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
McCusker, H.
Stanbrook, Ivor


Cormack, Patrick
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Corrie, John
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald


Crawford, Douglas
Marten, Neil
Stradling Thomas, J.


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Tebbit, Norman


Durant, Tony
Molyneaux, James
Thompson, George


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Montgomery, Fergus
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Eyre, Reginald
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Watt, Hamish


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Wigley, Dafydd


Forman, Nigel
Mudd, David
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Freud, Clement
Newton, Tony
Winterton, Nicholas


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Pardoe, John



Glyn, Dr Alan
Penhaligon, David
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Mr Spencer Le Marchant and


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Raison, Timothy
Mr. Jim Lester.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again tomorrow.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments).

OVERSEAS AID

That the Asian Development Bank (Extension of Limit on Guarantees) Order 1977, a draft of which was laid before this House on 10th January, be approved.—[Mr. Coleman.]

Question agreed to.

SCOTLAND AND WALES BILL (DIVISION)

11.35 p.m.

Mr. McCusker: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for raising this point of order at this time, but it is my first opportunity to do so. I seek your guidance on the validity of the Division on the closure of the debate.
The Doorkeeper's record shows that the Division was called at 11.6 p.m. My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) and I were conscious of the fact that, due to the dispute around the Table, insufficient attention might have been paid to the clock. The

doors were not ordered closed until 11.15 p.m. Assuming at the worst that when 11.6 p.m. was recorded the time was 11.6 and 59 seconds and, again at the worst, that the order to close the doors was given at 11.15 p.m. precisely, it appears that the doors remained open longer than the allotted time. I therefore seek your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on whether the Division was valid.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): I appreciate what the hon. Member is saying. I am now acting as Mr. Deputy Speaker and therefore what happened in Committee is not a matter for me at the moment. The hon. Member may endeavour to raise it next time the House goes into Committee on the Bill.

EMPLOYMENT (HULL)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Coleman.]

11.36 p.m.

Mr. John Prescott: I wish to draw to the attention of the House tonight on the motion for the Adjournment the extremely serious level of unemployment in Hull, which three hon. Members have the honour to represent. In the limited time available to us we shall seek to illustrate to the Minister and to the House the desperate need for special assistance to deal with the level of unemployment in this area.


We wish to divide the time among the three Members who represent Hull. I shall use my limited time to attempt to analyse the problem as at present, and my colleagues will no doubt deal with some of the solutions that we generally agree should be considered by the Government.
The present level of unemployment is 15,000, higher than ever since the war. That is an average of 7·8 per cent. and 10 per cent. male unemployment. It is 50 per cent. higher than in the Yorkshire and Humberside area generally and considerably higher yet again than the United Kingdom average. It is higher than the rates for Scotland, Wales, Teesside and Aberdeen.
The point that we wish to impress upon Ministers is that Hull does not just reflect the problem of unemployment now to be found in all parts of the country. It is not a reflection of cyclical developments but is a considerable deterioration that has continued for almost a decade. We wish to bring to the Minister's attention the fact that it is not just a matter of saying that unemployment is bad all round.
In 1961 there were 2,300 unemployed and the rise to the present figure is a yearly average increase of 35 per cent. The duration of unemployment in Hull is serious. Over 4,000 have been unemployed for more than 12 months, one in three, well above the national average. So unemployment is greater and lasts longer.
Of the 2,000 young people in the Humberside area who are unemployed, 1,000 are in Hull, so we have 50 per cent. of the youth unemployment of the area. The loss of jobs has been at a considerable rate. Between 1973 and 1975 jobs were being lost at the rate of 280 a month.
That situation led to a debate in the House on 30th April 1975. The debate was initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara), who made points that I should like to reiterate in this debate. I should like to quote the Minister's reply. The Minister said:
Humberside has had more than its share of setbacks in recent months, but there is no reason why these problems cannot be overcome. We are pursuing a strong regional policy in

support of the area."—[Official Report, 29th April 1975; Vol. 891, c. 440.]
We can now, two years later, look at the record. The net job loss again has been 120 jobs per month, an average of 1,500 per year, and the reasons for this are considerable. I hope that I have the Minister's attention on this point. It is very important that he should have it established in his mind that we feel that the high unemployment in our area and the reason for the catalogue of misery that I have just outlined to him is due to the closure of industries and to industrial structural problems, and the result of Government decisions or lack of decision. Most of these decisions were outside the control of the Hull people.
The people of Hull have done a considerable amount through the local authority industrial development committee to attempt to counteract the problem. For example, after the Minister's statement in the 1975 debate, Imperial Typewriters closed down and 2,000 people were made unemployed. What could have prevented that huge multinational company from deciding to produce typewriters in Germany instead of Britain? The only force that could have prevented the company from taking that course was the Government by imposing controls and using its countering power to prevent the Company's decision to produce elsewhere.
In Brough, where aircraft are made, 450 men are to be made redundant due to the Government's desire not to put investment into plans, particularly the HS 146 which is needed not only for employment but for the civil aviation industry's future.
In the shipyards 500 people have been made unemployed. The Government reversed its promise to nationalise shipyards in the Hull area and so another 500 people were made unemployed. Needlers and our shipyards suffer from problems because of the denial of the regional employment premium given to competitor companies in the development districts because it is an intermediate development area.
I have before me a comparison of a manufacturing company in my area with one registered in Scotland. In the Scottish development area only 500 people are unemployed compared with over


15,000 in the Hull area. The plants produce the same product but the plant in Scotland gets £150,000 more in aid, and the result is that the product is produced in Scotland for £2·50 while to make the same product in Hull without the Government subsidy it costs £4·80. How is it possible to attract industry to an intermediate area such as Hull? Every day there is evidence of companies being shown these economic facts after first deciding to locate in Hull and then transferring to other areas—openly encouraged by Government Departments?
We have seen the decline of the timber industry due to the small wharves, and that has meant the loss of 1,000 jobs. This requires a port policy to be developed by the Government. The crisis and crucial decline in fishing due to the consequences of the Law of the Sea Conference, Iceland and entering the EEC has cost another 2,000 jobs. Altogether, since the Minister spoke in those optimistic terms we have lost 6,000 jobs, over 250 jobs a month, and it is not possible to counter that with the measures presently available to us.
There have been demands made from my area for development area status. I have developed the idea that the regional employment premium, which would cost only £20 million, could be given to areas such as Hull that have higher unemployment rates than higher assistance areas. I shall quote from a letter that the Minister sent to me after these facts were pointed out to him by delegations and at conferences. In a letter of November 1976 the Minister of State for Industry said about extending development area status:
The Industry Act 1972 provides some guidance on this point as … that Act requires that in designating Development Areas, account is taken of 'all the circumstances actual and expected, including the state of employment and unemployment'.
Frankly, Hull is in a critical state. We need special help for special circumstances. Unless the Government can give that, people will be asking why, if the Government cannot help in this special crisis, they should support the Labour Government. Hull has always returned three Labour Members. I hope that the Minister will heed the message from Hull that enough is enough and that we shall hear something helpful from him tonight.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: My hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson) and I have travelled the railway between Hull and Paddington and Kings Cross like yo-yos, bringing delegations from our city, especially the county and district councils, to discuss fishing, unemployment and regional area status. We have come away with sympathy, understanding and consideration, but with very few jobs or opportunities for lasting employment for our people.
I said during the 1966–70 Labour Government that what was happening on Humberside was not just the sort of cyclical unemployment that we hear so much about today but was rather a structural unemployment that was cutting away at the roots of the economy in the area. The facts listed by my hon. Friend for Kingston upon Hull, East show that I was right. This is obvious when one looks at what has happened in transport, fishing and mechanical engineering.
Tremendous efforts have been made by the county and, particularly, by the city to attract new industry, but we have been thwarted on every side. We lack the ability to attract industry because other parts of this country's economy are felt to have more pressing needs than has Hull.
It is ironic that a fortnight ago I was talking to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport about trying to maintain the Hull to Scarborough railway line and one of the Scarborough delegation said that his town now had the biggest frozen chip factory in Europe and had won it from Humberside because Scarborough had development area status.
The director of a major company in my area told me that his firm invested in North Allerton—which has no unemployment—rather than in Hull because it received more regional assistance there. The company is considering further investment, but it is tempted not to invest locally, but to go elsewhere.
If for no other reason than to give confidence to our local firms, we should have development area status. On every criterion, the Hull travel-to-work areas qualifies for it.
We also need further help for urban renewal. It would be a considerable help if we in Hull and our part of the old East Riding qualified for English Tourist Board grants so that we could take advantage of the great number of tourists who arrive in England at Hull, but then disappear to other parts of the country.
We need a coherent strategy for the area from the Government. We see the unemployment figures rising and Freightliner disappears; we see matters of concern in connection with maintaining the infrastructure; the county council is talking about reducing teacher supply in an area of great urban deprivation.
It is not sufficient for Ministers merely to say that they are looking at the problem. They have been looking at it for over a year in the Department of Industry. We need a boost and something positive from the Government. The people of Hull are desperate. There is a frightening apathetic acceptance of the situation. But I warn the Government that the time will come when not only will county councils and city councils and trade unions protest but a great upsurge of feeling will emerge. My hon. Friend should be aware of that. We have had enough. We want positive action from the Government to alleviate the distressing situation and to show that we may have confidence in the Government.

11.51 p.m.

Mr. James Johnson: The Government are now well aware of the economic difficulties in Hull. Many civic and industrial deputations have wended their way to Westminster over past months. I have just returned from East Africa, and even there our plight is known through television coverage of our fishing dispute with Iceland.
Our vessels are tied up at St. Andrew's Dock in West Hull. About 30 vessels are involved and 750 men on deck. That can soon multiply to 4,000 men on shore without jobs. Some people disbelieve that Yorkshire and Humberside can be like Tyneside and Merseyside—yet we have always had low wages but a low cost of living. We have worked hard and played hard—as one can tell by our Rugby League record.
Unemployment statistics have worsened, as outlined by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), and we now have 10·6 per cent. male unemployment. We have pestered the Government until we are blue in the face to achieve development area status. By any yardstick our case is overwhelming. The Secretary of State is sympathetic but he will not take any piecemeal action—and tell us we must wait until a new national map is made of new development areas.
Our engineering industry is in the dumps. The district committee of the AUEW has lately threatened to contract out of the political levy to the Labour Party because it is dissatisfied with Government policy.
All this is mounting up, and a malaise afflicts Hull. The people of Hull are downhearted because they believe that the Government are attempting nothing. I do not share that view. Part of our affliction is caused by the change in local government. Kingston upon Hull has been demoted to the status of a local district council—one of nine within the county council. We have lost control over our schools, planning and police. That militates against being cheerful.
Nye Bevan once said that there was nothing to fear but fear itself.
I applaud the local paper, The Hull Daily Mail, which last night gave us something better than the usual dirge. It said:
High hopes of new jobs tonic for the Hull area.
By God, we need that.
I had today a helpful Answer from the Ministry of Defence. Hawker Siddeley is to be given an order for 24 Harrier GR3 aircraft. Unfortunately this will merely stabilise the existing position. Of course that is better than the job situation becoming worse, but it will merely hold the line in the sense that it will get no worse than having 350 men who could be and, I believe, will be displaced by 1st April.
The picture is not entirely black. There is much to which we can look forward. The M62 motorway is proving a tonic to the port, which in my view is the best equipped in Western Europe. The Humber Bridge is coming. Above all, I believe that it would be silly or fatal


to sell ourselves short tonight. If the national economy picks up, we can pick up alongside it. We could well have better days to come. I can only wish that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will give the people of Hull and their Members some hope in his reply that these will come to pass.

1.56 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Golding): I fully appreciate the concern that has been expressed by my hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) and Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson) about Hull's level of unemployment. The Government fully recognise that the high level of unemployment is caused not only by the national and international recission but because Hull is facing a number of special employment probems. In particular, I appreciate the importance of the fishing industry.
My hon. Friends will know better than I the long-term importance of all the fishery negotiations which are presently taking place. Fishing vessels that formerly fished the Icelandic waters have moved on to other grounds—for example, the North-East Arctic. They hope to extend their sphere but the possibility of their doing this will only become clear later. Because the vessels have gone to other waters there has been little change in the number at sea and only a few jobs have been lost.
It remains our firm objective to protect the interests of British fishermen—indeed all those who depend on fishing for a living—in the negotiation of the common fisheries policy, including a variable zone of up to 50 miles reserved for our vessels.
I am concerned not only about employment in the fishing industry but about the closures and redundancies in the past few years. Forceful representations were made earlier to Ministers by my hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull, West and Kingston upon Hull, Central about the present situation of Hawker Siddeley and Needlers. Mention has been made of the order announced today of the 24 Harriers, not to prevent redundancies but to try to provide the stability that is of minimum requirement.

We should prefer to see the creation of secure jobs, but I must outline the help that the Government's special measures have given to Hull. Of these, most— 2,637—jobs have been saved by the temporary employment subsidy scheme. Because we recognised how important this scheme was to Hull, as to many other areas, in December we decided to extend it when the REP was abolished in the development areas. The temporary employment subsidy is designed to save jobs. The job release scheme has been designed to create additional opportunities for unemployed workers in the assisted areas, including Hull, and to reduce the competition for jobs among the unemployed.
The scheme offers a tax-free allowance of £23 a week and supplementary benefit if necessary for up to one year to men of 64 and women of 59 on condition that in the case of the unemployed they neither take work not claim unemployment or certain other benefits and, in the case of those at work, that they are released by their employer, that the application is made with the knowledge and agreement of the trade union concerned, and that the employer recruits as soon as possible a full-time replacement from the unemployment register.
So far the response has been disappointing nationally. In Hull only 134 people have been helped by it. Although I should be entirely opposed to pressure being brought on individuals, it would be helpful if my hon. Friends could assist by making this scheme better known among older workers—many of whom have led an arduous working life and who may wish to pack up work just that bit earlier. Not only that, but it can help those younger people of whom my hon. Friends have spoken.
The problem among the young is still acute, although the careers officers, helped by Government measures, have done an excellent job in reducing the number of school leavers registered at careers offices from 1,745 in July 1976, to 346 in January of this year. But, of course, we have to try our damnedest to find opportunities for those 346—and the other 2,331 young people under the age of 20 who are unemployed.
Already, young people in Hull have benefited from our special measures. The Recruitment Subsidy for School Leavers


Scheme, when in operation, helped 373. Now we are assisting youngsters who have been unemployed for six months or more through the Youth Employment Subsidy Scheme, which gives those who employ them £10 a week for 26 weeks.
No enough employers have taken advantage of that scheme—only about 150 youngsters have been helped in Hull—and I hope that many more will do so. Unfortunately, too many employers in Hull, as elsewhere, refuse to give youngsters who have been unemployed a long time a fair chance. We have found this even with work experience, which is a scheme which we introduced to give young people a first-hand knowledge of working life. The Government, who foot the entire bill for work experience, would very much like to see more work experience projects in the Hull area, where only 79 young people have been helped so far. More firms should follow the example of Debenhams, which has provided an opportunity for eight youngsters, and others. We want the Work Experience Scheme to have as much impact in Hull as the Job Creation Programme which we have recently extended.

Mr. McNamara: On the matter of job creation, can my hon. Friend give any information about the request by Humberside theatres for assistance having been turned down by his Department, when other areas have had help with similar schemes?

Mr. Golding: I have asked the Manpower Services Commission Job Creation Programme people to deal with that as a matter of urgency.
To return to the Job Creation Programme, 475 people have been helped by local sponsors, particularly the local authorities. Community Industry, too, has helped young people in Hull with particular difficulties in finding or keeping work. At present, 100 youngsters are engaged in a variety of jobs, such as extensions to buildings of the parish institute, conversions of air-raid shelters into a community centre and helping in a smallholding run by the local authority. We are concerned not only to provide job creation and community industry but to help young people get other training—

which will assist them to get jobs in the future.
To supplement the main rapidly expanding TSA and industrial training board programmes, training is also provided at operator, semi-skilled and junior clerical level for unemployed young people who are having difficulty in finding a job. There are 77 places at colleges of further education in Hull, and 90 places with employers.

Mr. McNamara: Will my hon. Friend say in two minutes what he will do?

Mr. Golding: Adult training in Hull under the Training Opportunities Scheme has been greatly expanded—about 900 in 1975, with a target for 1977 of 1,400 people trained. The Department of Industry is even now considering an application for development area status for Hull, and my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Industry has met representatives from the Yorkshire and Humberside Economic Planning Council to discuss the case. This matter was also raised when my hon. Friend together with othe Ministers, met representatives from Humberside County Council on 25th January to discuss a number of issues. Some of these issues will obviously also be put again to my hon. Friend when he visits Hull on 4th March to see the problems at first hand.
The decision on development area status will be made by Ministers at the Department of Industry—and I am glad to see present my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for industry—but it will be influenced by the progress of the international negotiations on fishing, and it is still too early to assess the effects of the negotiations on employment in Hull. Even so, Hull already benefits from intermediate area status. Between 1st January 1976 and 30th November, £2 million worth of regional selective financial assistance was offered for 11 projects which are expected to create 217 jobs and save another 1,045. The Government have also allocated seven advance factory units and 10 terraced units to the Hull area, and more land has been and is being acquired for factory building. In 1976, 12 IDCs were approved, involving an extra 360 jobs.
The Accelerated Projects Scheme is also helping Hull through the construction of


a major new factory involving many temporary local construction jobs and over 100 new permanent direct jobs, and also through the construction of—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Wednesday evening

and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at six minutes past Twelve o'clock.